Will President Bush Invade Iran?

Dear Dr. Gill, I have not yet read the article you posted, and please excuse me to be offbeat by letting you know I am an old friend of your elder brother Mo Gill who worked as an Engineer in a hospital in Michigan. Could you please let me have his email address. Please say hello to him for me. Thanks

"The Iraq mess was created because the administration had stubbornly refused to truly grasp the aftermath of the Iraq war..."

Oh, they had grasped it alright, Dick Cheney had known about the "aftermath" ever since Gulf War 1, so now they develop amnesia just to mislead ignoramuses like Mr. Gill. The war chaos, which the Americans encouraged when they rushed to Saddar City (Then Saddam City) to send the maurading masses from there with VIP passes to loot and spread mayhem in the city under the Americans blessings and watchful eyes. Chaos produced a lot of profits for the US elite and their peons and that is exactly what they wanted regardless of the human cost of the entire farce.

Now, regarding the "Iran" invasion, there will be no invasion, nada, zilch, NO INVASION- get this and understand this. What there will be will be a gradual escalation for the purpose of distraction and building up an enemy, for that purpose countries (like Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon etc) will be sacrificed. To get a grip on what the US plans for Iran go back to July of 2006 with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I had said it then and I maintain it now that that was a feeler for an Iran campaign, a prelude to test the waters so to speak, the second prelude came with an air strike on Syria recently, to guage the reaction and fallout. So, will the US try to further complicate its situation in Iraq, a war whose only unanticipated consequence was a very rapidly developing anti-war movement, which will prove to be quite irritating if the US were to invade Iran, so we will see American airstrikes under Israeli flags, a few missiles (third raters) from Iran landing in Israel, a few thousand killed in Iran a couple of dozen killed in Israel and then the status quo with the mullahs firmly incharge of Iran and the US further on its road to robbing its people and barbarically killing with deprivation the rest of the world....mark my words and watch your news channels....

They don’t want another war.


Oh yes they'll support a war if it's clean..Aerial bombardment that looks good on CNN..like serbia..


My personal theory is that bush or hillary will bomb the republican guard saying they are terrorist groups and we're only attacaking terrorists..then the iranians will start the war.

They'll try everything just short of complete invasion.

When Clinton was rocked with Lewinsky scandal he bombed Baghdad to divert the public attention. Now Bush can do everything short of invasion.

The crucial question is if the US invades Iran oil will hit 150$ and if Iran succeeds in shutting down Hormuz oil will go above 200$ this will send the US and the rest of the OECD economies into a recession

So bombing Iran requires a lot of balls

Ravi_Kopra: #1

His e-mail address is as follows:

magill32@hotmail.com

Mohammad Gill

only a nincompoop will believe that Iran will NOT be attacked. It is a matter of when not if.
These neocons are happy to still the blood of others to the last drop...
BUT if the attack on Iran occurs apart from high oil prices [so what? a drop of innocent human blood is infinitely more precious than oil] it could lead to these following scenarios although for once masadi is actually making sense EXCEPT even a little strike like that might escalate...

gill sahib,

... to answer yor question: i don't know if president bush will invade iraq or not, but i really think he should - and the sooner the better ........ remember the old saying, "a stitch in time saves nine " ...... the world could have avoided the carnage of ww-ii if the leaders at that time had the gonads to invade nazi germany ......... if bush acts like chamberlain ,future generations will never forgive him ..........

While open warfare between the U.S. and Iran seems very unlikely, another scenario might take place if the U.S backed off even from bombing the Iranian installations. Israel might bomb Iran at the instance of the U.S. Such a proposition had been discussed in the press. Israel recently bombed some targets in Syria and the U.S.'s silence was ear-shattering. But all of such measures seem very very dangerous. Israeli bombing might trigger an all-out war not only between Israel and Iran but with some other Arab countries in the region. It might eventually lead to nuclear strikes by Israel which would be totally disastrous for the world peace. Such an action by Israel in collusion with India against Kahuta in Pakistan was planned in 1983 but the U.S. didn't go for it. The CIA tipped General Zia about it and the planned strike was called off, according to the following report in today's Dawn.

Mohammad Gill
__________________________________________________________

‘Israel planned to hit Kahuta from India’s Jamnagar base’


NEW DELHI, Oct 28: India and Israel secretly planned to hit nuclear facility in Kahuta near Islamabad in 1983-84 but backed off when the CIA tipped off Pakistan’s then president Gen Ziaul Haq.

This was claimed in a report from London published in The Asian Age, citing details revealed by investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their book titled ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’.

The authors highlighted India’s intelligence links with Israel at the time when the two countries did not have any diplomatic contact.

“In February 1983, with the strike plan at an advanced stage, Indian military officials had travelled secretly to Israel, which had a common interest in eliminating (Dr A.Q.) Khan, to buy electronic warfare equipment to neutralise Kahuta’s air defences,” the book said.

India put its plans on hold after Dr Raja Ramanna, the then director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, was warned by the then Chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Munir Ahmed Khan in Vienna in the autumn of 1983 that Islamabad would attack Trombay if its facilities in Kahuta were hit.

At this juncture, the book said, Israel suggested that they would carry out the raid on Kahuta, using India’s Jamnagar base in Gujarat to launch its jets and use another base in northern India for refuelling the aircraft. “In March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation, bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration.”

However, the authors said India and Israel backed down after the CIA tipped off Gen Zia and the US state department warned India that “the US will be responsive if India persists.”

The book further said Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.

—APP

Freethinker, had Iraq not turned into a quagmire the way it did, Iran's getting hit would have been a certainty. Under the present scenario, however,...

Invading Iran - the probability is zero!

Air attacks - the probability is 75 percent.

As the old saying goes...Bhaagte bhoot ki, langotee hi sahi!

And if GWB does indeed conduct air attacks - ninety-nine percent of the "credit" for that would belong to that Ahmednijad guy who, with those "holocaust denial" masterpiece theatrics - proved himself to be in as "exclusive" a league as the late (and sometimes even lamented) Saddam used to occupy all by himself - and thus strengthened Bush's hands and perhaps also his resolve like no enemy of Iran could ever have done.

Gill what I read was that India refused the israeli offer because they feared retaliation from Pakistan where as Israel being far away was immune.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379

Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
John Zogby Videoclips Available here
John Zogby Audioclips Available here

Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

It doesnt matter air attack or ground attack it will bring tanker traffic to a halt in the persian gulf and may lead to strikes and sabotage in Iraq as well as Iran and oil going above 150/200 will bring not just OECD but china and India nto a recession as well all these booming stock markets will crash

Re: # 11

Nonsense, India is ready to fight to the finish in case Pakis have death wish and want to go to their Allah on an express train.

I think that Bush should not invade because the game plan is not clear.
Bush needs to invest on apostates and liberals and ensure that they are ready to take care of the future of Iran and ensure that the Mahdi doomsday Sect is thoroughly discredited.
Bush should indulge in covert operations by anti-Ayotollah forces of freedom and liberal democracy.
Just invest in those anti mullah forces who can assasinate these ayotollahs and ensure that these ayotollahs are at war with each other.
After the conditions are appropriate it must install the liberal government who would then make a peace agreement with US to neutralize the nukes and the missiles.

This is what bush should do than waste billions of dollars :-

Make Ali Sina the president of Iran .

...an attack on iran will be even more disastrous than the attack on iraq.....an easy way to figure out what should be done in such cases, is to narrow in on what hamidm mian states....and then to do the opposite....he was quite convinced that an attack on iraq would be the best thing since sliced bread....unfortunately, there are still quite a few individuals in the usa with his mindset...

.....iran is a totally different can of worms than iraq (and afgahnistan)...and the usa has totally lost in those two countries.....iran is a much larger population, with a much homogenous population, three times the geographic area of iraq and has an elected leader.....it is functioning society with an organized armed forces, etc......

.....there was an interesting article by a retired us officer on what would happen if the usa attacked iran.....i will try to locate it.....

.....basically, all iran would need to do is to start bombing the straits of hormuz and to target us forces in iraq.....that would send the price of oil through the roof.....and would totally destablize the usa in iraq.....where it has yet to face air and missile strikes....

then again, it is not beyond the bush govt. to strike iran.....even when it has been defeated in afghanistan and iraq....

.....in the process, iraq will be squeezed.....it will have turkey attacking from one side and iran from the other.....

interestingly, usa has the most powerful stockpile of nukes in the world.....it is the only country that has used nukes.....it carries out attacks on other countries around once ever two to four years.....it has used more armament since ww11 and has killed more people since ww11 than any country in the world......

iran, as far as i know, hasn't invaded a country for 200 years.....and it doesn't even have nukes.....

under what formula is iran a bigger danger to the world than the usa.......

i think the usa may attempt to launch missile and some air strikes against iran.....but it has no soldiers left to invade......and if it did, it would be defeated again....

......the most crucial part will be the reaction of iran to these air and missile strikes......

Dear Writer,

Will US attack Iran? Seemed a certain thing early 2007, but since then things have cooled down and very recenltly picked up steam as the Russians jumped in with their unbridled support to the Iranian Government.

Most probably, strategy of maintaining intense pressure on the Iranian Govt will continue and its very unlikely that the Us will take military action. Aerial bombardment by the Israelis cannot be ruled out.

Very much doubt that USA would try to invade Iran when they are already being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and with oil prices over US$90. But then again with looneys you never know.

Regards

#17 by bulleya

....he was quite convinced that an attack on iraq would be the best thing since sliced bread....

And you were convinced that Indians would have to wear T-shirts with the Paki flag to feel safe in the days after 9/11. What happened then? You were forced to flee to Canada and now Pakistan.

here is one of the reasons why Iran could be hit...

here is one of the reasons why Iran could be hit...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

"The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse."



If Iran does this - even China will be hit since almost all their affairs are in $$$$ ....

from the same article quoted in #22

"In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

There are a few options

(a) War to neutralise this threat
(b) Withdraw from International obligations
(c) do nothing

Purely from an American POV (b) is the best option since it can survive by itself...and carryon. But the Rest of the World will suffer immensely from this (atleast that is my limited understanding......economists can expound on this) and they will call on the US to take up its international responsibilities.....which means it will have to do (a). Option C is not really an option.

China, Japan, Europe, SEAsia, ASEAN (and the fellow ummahiets Saudis, GCC etc) will have to go with (b) there will be arguments over the operationality but not the actual decision itself. Minnows from Africa, SAmerica, India will be like little pipsqueaks shout a lot but they have no cajones at all and can be eaten by either side.

The politics of the threats have to play out.....lets see if Iran backs down....the only winners in this game will be the US and Russia. The rest, it depends on whose coat tails they float on. Even Venezuela is hedging its bets...but is more inclined towards its fellow continental.

see also this

(a)http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.h tm

(b)http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8354.htm
"Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse"

(c)http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0830/p03s01-wome.html "Iran's oil gambit "

(d)http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm Iran's Oil Bourse: A threat to World Economy

(e)http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm "Iran: Euro to replace dollar as oil currency"

(f)http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/ar ticle1263954.ece "Iran turns from dollar to euro in oil sales"

These are all from 2004-2006....and in the western press....the story has been going on....for sometime. Infact the Financial Times had a reasonable article on this sometime back...wil dig it up if I can.

There are a few options

(a) War to neutralise this threat
(b) Withdraw from International obligations
(c) do nothing

Purely from an American POV (b) is the best option since it can survive by itself...and carryon. But the Rest of the World will suffer immensely from this (atleast that is my limited understanding......economists can expound on this) and they will call on the US to take up its international responsibilities.....which means it will have to do (a). Option C is not really an option.

China, Japan, Europe, SEAsia, ASEAN (and the fellow ummahiets Saudis, GCC etc) will have to go with (b) there will be arguments over the operationality but not the actual decision itself. Minnows from Africa, SAmerica, India will be like little pipsqueaks shout a lot but they have no cajones at all and can be eaten by either side.

The politics of the threats have to play out.....lets see if Iran backs down....the only winners in this game will be the US and Russia. The rest, it depends on whose coat tails they float on. Even Venezuela is hedging its bets...but is more inclined towards its fellow continental.

Dash,

(Even Venezuela is hedging its bets...but is more inclined towards its fellow continental.)

All oil exporting countries would be praying for a Iran War. Who gains most if oil touches say US$150.

Regards

#27 they will lose out.....as it is this is the age when people are worried about global warming and worried about the nature of adding more carbon to the carbon cycle ....and there is a rush towards energy efficiency and alternatives.

if it does hit $150...countries like India and china (where demand for energy is increasing), the US and Europe where there is a huge consumption, will move towards alternatives and efficiency. The Net result would be a reduction is consumption and an advancement of technologies leaveing these guys even more behind.

Today there is a whole of investment going on in these areas (even in countries like China and India). Short terms gain yes for the producers but long term in 10 years or more they will be the biggest losers.

Dash,

(Short terms gain yes for the producers but long term in 10 years or more they will be the biggest losers. )

In the long-term we are all dead. People are more likely to look at what they will gain in the next 2-3 years than what is going to happen in 10 years from now.

Regards

Does Iran's president want to "wipe Israel off the map?"

Check sources...

http://www.doublestandards.org/tilley3.html

http://www.thetruth seeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866

Re: # 29 even two to three years ..these guys will lose out.....

most of these countries are two bit nations who would not be more than asmall itch were it not for the oil and they will be reduced to that if they go to the 150-200 $ oil. just an example Angola....know what is the thing people fight there for these days...columbite-tantalite (coltan to you and me) ...it is the most valuable resource currently....without it our miniaturisation of gadgets would not have been possible....

the ayatollahs must go

....... it really doesn't matter how close iran is to acquiring nuclear weapons, but eventually it will and that is something we cannot tolerate as long as it is ruled by religious nutcases ........ the aim should be regime change, not just taking out a few military installations ....

....regime change can be brought about by a complete economic embargo, combined with support for local opposition groups and selective bombing of military and nuclear targets ........ it might take ten or more years, but it must happen ...... otherwise the world will be sorry

Dash,

(most of these countries are two bit nations who would not be more than asmall itch were it not for the oil and they will be reduced to that if they go to the 150-200 $ oil. )

Sorry, could not follow you. How could Venezuela and the rest lose out in 2-3 YEARS if oil reaches US$ 150.

Regards

Re: # 33 2-3 years was your time frame....I merely agreed with it..

they will gain in the short term long term they lose and they will lsoe out pretty heavyly that is IMHO.

#28 Posted by Dash_Dot on October 30, 2007 3:46:32 am

there's a silver lining..the government will be forced to cut the cross-subsidy..

in any case, it won't go to 150...think strategic reserve and saudi arabia.

Dear Chowk Interactors,

Please be warned that interacting with "Arjun5", and being any combination of Pakistani, Muslim and/or disagreeing with his viewpoint makes it in his warped and abusive mind excusable for the following:

1. Using your real name with full maliciousness and impunity on chowk.com

2. Linking your name to slanderous and deceptively misleading google url spam entries to various webcrawling websites.

In the past month, my name and chowk have been linked to at least ten webcrawling sites and the support of "gitmo terrorists", the murder of a Christian Dalit woman, etc.

See the following example

"Chowk: Identity Politics Culture and Religion of
India Pakistanhere we go again...s.
s. advocating the cause of the gitmo
terrorists shouldn't you, perhaps, focus your energy
and limited intellect on ...
www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/45861 - 12k - Cached -
Similar pages - Note this"

webpage:
http://www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/45861


ALL these interacts are headed with a line written by "Arjun5".

Is this acceptable to interactors at chowk.com?

America and Iran are partners for the Barrels. The friction causes the price to go up and friends are arms in arms.
While the economies are struggling.
Iran enjoys nagging America and American haunts not Iran but the world that it is going to attack, thus pushing the Oil prices.

Nothing is developing in this situation but the prices. This is money game that's it.
Economic ruin of America is necessary as Israel doesn't the elephant with a brain of a size of peanut awakes to its blunders.

It appears there's an interesting debate going on about the price of oil if Iran is attacked. The scenario is not $150-200/bbl but $300/bbl plus. During the gulf oil embargo of 1973, the price jumped from $18/bbl to $58/bbl in a few days. It is close to $100 now just because of tension, while consumption has grown many fold since 1973, so even three times is conservative. Make your own guess.

Firstly the people who think Saudia will increase production to keep international prices stable are just plain stupid. The world oil consumption is close to 90 million bbl per day. 60% of that passes through the Strait of Hermuz. How much difference would a Saudi increase make? Besides most of Saudi oil passes through the strait, and they will need to switch 100% to their red-sea port on the other side facing Egypt/Sudan. Iran will certainly escalate and red-sea won't be safe either. And then, who knows if Saudia remains stable itself once Iran escalates the war.

Secondly, the US reserve stocks (continuously built up during price dips) will last for the length of any short war, but EU has no reserves. Europe was the hardest hit in the 1973 oil embargo too. This time the disruption will be disastrous.

Thirdly, it will kill all development in most third world emerging countries. The consumption driven booms in countries like India, Pakistan, China, Thailand, Vietnam etc have already resulted in most of these countries running current account deficits which are hardly sustainable at even $100/bbl. However at $ 300 or $400, it will mean recession accompanied with hyper-inflation; or to coin a term; hyper-stagflation, with plummeting currencies. In short, great civil disorder.

This scenario is why Iran is itching for a fight, and I say Godspeed to them. Finish off the Great Satan once and for all.

An invasion is not on the cards.

An attack on the other hand might also destablize Pakistan

which is already experiencing the Iraq/Afghanistan fallout.

Re: # 38

oil is cheap

zeemax,

adjusted for inflation, oil was over $100/bbl in 1979 ...... i think $200/bbl is a reasonable price .... buy a hybrid and stop bitching about it - it will also help global warming and all that other nonsense ...

and stop acting like the saber waving bedouin fool in indiana jones - remember how indi hust took out his gun and shot him dead ? ....

Re: # 40

indiana jones example is apt... the iranians fools are itching for a fight and it won't be pretty for them...

As much as I hate another war - the bedouin antics are really irritating...

Iran wont be able to do any long term damage to the world or US economy but it could send the developed world into a much deeper and longer recession than otherwise. the us is any way edging towards a mild recesion due to the mortgage crisis. The strategic reserves and saudi arabia cant hold up world oil prices for the simple reason that saudis are already pumping oil at near full capacity and the vast majority of it flows out from dammam which is in the persian gulf. The US strategic reserve will be used only in case of oil shortage it cannot be used to keep up the price since it is too small. Europe will for the short term get by on north sea and scandinavian oil but prices will rocket up and Japan, east asia , india and china will be left holding their balls.

India and china will be doubly hit one due to the high price of oil and the huge import bill and secondly because their growth is export fed through provision of goods and services to the OECD, their stock markets and economies which are rocketing will crash.

zeemax#38:

I am surprised at the factual errors made by you. Oil prices due to Yom Kippur war did not go up from $18 to $58 unless you are referring to prices in 2007 terms. They went up from less than $3 to $12 in nominal terms. The earlier peak price was $40 as a result of the second oil crisis which, in real terms, would be close to the current market prices.

Hamidm you are right oil has still a long way to go before it reaches even 79 and 73 levels adjusted for inflation but it will reach there and then some because price oil is not linearly proportional to supply shortage. Hormuz has the majority of the world's traded oil pass through it and the iranians have a few misiles and subs that can block it with just a few tanker hits' it will take the US weeks to clear it unless they deploy most of their fleet there. Iranians can also cause probs in Iraq's oil supply and just Iran beeing taken out of the international market will ratchet oil above 150$ that would be close to 79 levels which sent the US into a recesion and Jimmy Carter out of the oval office

#40 Posted by hamidm2,

Don't concern yourself too much with this inflation adjusted nonsense. Indeed, the oil price fell back to $18 and remained in that region for a long time after Kuwait and Nigeria sabotaged OPEC, which explains your inflation-adjusted prices ... but there weren't any Jihadis back then, were there?

But I wish it doesn't happen in winters anyway because you won't have any heating in your basement where you're doomed to live, and I would hate to see you die of cold instead of like a man under the guillotine :)

#43 Posted by dost_mittar,

Dost, I'm talking about the oil embargo of 1973 by OPEC. It had nothing to do with Yom Kippur. Where's the problem?

The US way of life depends most importantly on cheap oil, over and above a recesion and unemployment it affects the day to day life of all americans who dont go the local store without taking out their station wagon. The pain will be such that the republicans will have no chance of reelction for the next 3 terms atleast

I wonder if we will still have cheap oil when the gulf coast, Bangladesh and all the world's coastal cities and small islands are under water.

(By 1979, ocean levels had started rising 10 times the rate after the last mini-iceage, and toay the are rising 30 times faster, at about 3 cm per year I think. These figures are from the top of my head from what I remember reading a few days ago).

#47 Posted by borivili_express on October 30, 2007 8:37:13 am


who dont go the local store without taking out their station wagon


station wagon? ROTFL...you're sooo out of touch..

another thing oil feeds into the price of everything else hence over all price index in the US will rocket up while wages will lag causing a decline in real incomes which will make John Doe rue the day he voted republican

#43 Posted by dost_mittar,

Sorry. You have a point there. The prices I'm quoting were after the initial oil shock of 1973 which was perhaps triggered by Yom Kippur. The aftermath saw a lot of fluctuations because of Nigeria's collapse.

station wagon, SUV, Lincoln all the same

borivili: I thought Lincoln was a president. How is he like a station wagon?

hamidm2:

"the aim should be regime change, not just taking out a few military installations .... "

...and attacking Iran's nuclear installations would be exactly the wrong thing to do to accomplish this. It is my impression that the anti-mullah, even unislamic/pro-persian constituency in Iran is stronger ithan a similar lobby in Pakistan. However, they all share Iran's nuclear ambition and an attack on Iran would simply consolidate support for the current regime.

Re: # 45

zeemax,

... if it weren't for the white man, your beloved bedouins would be sitting on all that oil and pounding sand instead of driving around in cadillacs ...

.......anyway, in the early eighties, texas was booming - the rig count was over 4500, oilfield equipment and services businesses were expanding like crazy, and arab sheiks in night robes were being escorted around houston by buxom blondes imported from vegas ....... i am sure the folks in texas can't wait for oil prices to go up again ....

hamimd: persians are white men. swatis are white men. tribal area boys are white men. so why are they not perfect??

u havent heard of Licoln navigator, aviator, towncar or continental?

#39 Posted by Ras on October 30, 2007 8:13:59 am



which is already experiencing the Iraq/Afghanistan fallout.


yup...pureland is experiencing the fallout of the retaliation on afghanistan, not the fallout of pakiland's use of islamic terrorism as a state policy..

borivli: Lincoln was a navigator and an aviator in addition to being a lawyer? That boy got around, I must say!!

borivli: (I am just trying to be humorous - please dont get mad at me.)

#55 Posted by hamidm2,

Hmmm ... our argument ends where the buxom of the blondes begins .......

If Bush attacks Iran he will have proved He is a man of principle who sticks to his word.

If he lets Israel attack he will have proved he is beholden to the jewish lobby.

If he does nothing Iran will slowly but surely aquire nuclear weapons

Re: # 56

tahmed,

... how many times do i have to tell you: 'white' is a state of mind ..... the japanese are 'white', the albanians are not and neither is anyone who stands by the side of the road with his pant strings in one hand and the other stuck down his pants .......

hamidm: I suggest you replace "white" with "sane", since that is obviously what you mean.

borivili writes "station wagon, SUV, Lincoln all the same "

No, they are not all the same, station wagons became popular in the post war 1950s period when the suburbs were being populatd, since the jobs at the time were still located in the inner cities, the suburban stay at home wives used to drive their hubbies (the classic nuclear family- that does not exist anymore) to the train station so they could take the train into the city for their work, hence the name "station wagon". Now that I have given you this history lesson, the SUV are hallmark of the newer generation yuppies, who provide service to the elite i.e. are quite subordinate to them.

I tend to agree with Hamid when he says that sky rocketing oil prices will only encourage the US elite to bomb Iran and not discourage it, higher oil prices after Gulf War 1 and 2 only added to the profits of this elite and pained the common man/woman who decides NOTHING in Washington. Republican/Democrat, there is no difference, they float around the same corridors of power and corporate boards regardless of party membership. Not only does the escalation with Iran pay for increasing military budgets and profits of a militarized economy, it will boosts profits of the big oil man, who has a major say (much moreso than any Israeli Jew) about what happens in the Middle East....

zeemax: i thought buxom was an adjective, not a noun.

Gill Saheb:

Aapkay munh mein ghee shakkar, but do not underestimate the stupidity of the Bush administration or the determination and effectiveness of the neocon lobby. As I have been saying, the neocons have succeeded completely in their Iraq objective, which was neither to get rid of Saddam (he could have been easily bought), defeat al-qaida (al-qaida hated Saddam's secular Iraq), bring democracy or the destruction of the non-existing wmds, but to destroy the state of Iraq, plunge it into a civil war leading to its dismemberment, which is now happening.

Having achieved their purpose in Iraq, the neocons are now concentrating on the other potential threat to their friend in the Middle East whose interests they primarily represent. And those interests demand that Iran should never have the ability to have nuclear war-heads capable of hitting Israel. So, unless Russia and China can prevent Iran from terminating or at least slowing down its nuclear program, Iran is not safe from attack.

masadi u are a fool, big money means fuel for relection and hence the prominence of big business of the jewish, oil, or any other kind but all the profit in the world can not get one relected if public sentiment and their vote goes against you and nothing upsets them like a recesion and inflation double whammy check with hoover, carter or george herbert walker bush.

dost-mittar:#67

I understand your argument. That is the reason I had said that the Iran war was an open question. I also said that the clock was running on President Bush. Open war seems to be out of question because he doesn't have time to get approval from the Congress. Bombing is a possibility although it is full of all kinds of dangers. President Bush is on his own on Iran war. Nobody else seems to be supporting him.
Oil question is also a big consideration. Any violent action on Iran will surely disrupt the oil supplies. After everything is said and done, Russian and Chinese support to Iran trumps every thing.
I don't believe that President Bush and his neocon aides will throw every thing over board just to punish Iran howsoever they might hate Ahmedinejad.

freethinker: i think neocons love ahmedinijad. The man could not make more gratuitous, self-defeating statements if you paid him to do so.

tahmed32: #70
You have a point.
Mohammad Gill

hamidm and all the other 'house niggers' who are happy to eat the crumbs off the Bwana's table and in their mental slavery [the worst kind] please answer the following honest questions:

1. Exactly how does Iran represent a threat to the USA? It is 1000s of miles away. It does not have the missiles that can reach the USA. Let us assume it did have a nuke or two and the delivery systems to reach the USA. Even then it would not be a threat to the US simply because any Iranian leader would know that if he nuked 1 US city the US would instantly retaliate with 1000s of nukes and turn the whole of Iran into a parking lot. So that argument of Iran being a military threat doesn't hold logically even in its worse-case scenario. Presently Iran is no threat at all to the US let alone to the 'world'.

2. What about Israel? Isn't a nuclear armed Iran an unacceptable threat to Israel? No. Iran has currently got NO nukes. Again assuming that Iran did acquire them it would be suicidal for them to use them on Israel as Israel would activate its Samson Option and send its 200 nukes all over Iran again wiping out Iran as a country.

3. Knowing the above two are military realities and that no leader would do that--and their is no evidence that Ahmadinijad would do something so detrimental. He's a smart guy [and no he DID NOT threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map'] the question arises WHY does the US want to attack Iran so badly?

Oil. It wants cheap access to Iran's oil and Iran is refusing.

DM sahib, what is wrong with the fragmentation of the jihadi mindset across the world? The model of dismembering muslim states and creating several centers of power is already on the way. why not take this to Iran? and then Saudi and then pakistan and Indonesia.. the global economic growth engines like US, EU, Japan, china, India, Brazil and Russia will continue to thrive as these battles become localized and amongst the various power centers within the muslim countries..fighting to ge their piece of the dwindling pie. Better that the suicide bombing are kept in muslim countries than out in teh places where global growth is determined.

Can some economist explain why an Iranian switch to selling oil in Euros would be opposed by the EU countries? Surely it would strengthen the euro even further against the dollar and be to their benefit? Also, what would be the effect of China dumping trillions of US dollars it currently holds or also switching to euros?

Re: # 72 naqsha it is breaking international trade agreements - tose that deal with making the dollar the reserve currency.....even the euro will have side with the US if Iran carries on with the Bourse in Euros! Even China will not side with Iran when that happens.

That is the key here...if it gives it up life will become just a tad bit easier for all....

This has nothing to with Nukes, but all to do with the roguish ness of the country.

You cannot willy-nilly break international agreements (both cvovert and overt agreements).

Re: # 69 freethinker and Dm it dont matter
(a) if Bush has a few months left
(b) if he currently does not have the congressional approval

War will happen if Iran operationalises the Euro deals (just as sad Man had done before the war) and opens the exchange in Euros. COngressional approvals will got and the Iranians sent back to the stone faster than you can hello.

Re: # 74 check the sites I gave earlier today in #20-#26.

All of the reserves are in $$$$.

Europe doesnot have the resources nor the capabilities or the capacity to absorb international trade like the US does. It is able to absorb ALL THE SURPLUSES of this world and yet carryon.

Hence Euro trade in Oil is a non-starter.

Re: # 67

dost-mittar;

you say: "the neocons have succeeded completely in their Iraq objective, which was neither to get rid of Saddam (he could have been easily bought), defeat al-qaida (al-qaida hated Saddam's secular Iraq), bring democracy or the destruction of the non-existing wmds, but to destroy the state of Iraq, plunge it into a civil war leading to its dismemberment, which is now happening."

.... now why would they do that? .... are you suggesting they are a bunch of crazies who just like to blow up things and kill people ? ...... al-qaeda does that, but even they have a higher cause which, according to them, is to establish al-lah mian's kingdom on this miserable earth ...... what do the neocons want? .... to oust al-lah mian and install bush on his throne? ..... or is it all about israel? .... that in of itself is a worthy cause because tiny isreal is a beacon of hope in that vast desert of depspair ......... but, c'mon, there has to be something more to it .......... is the oil? women? gold? sand? camels? ..... maybe it is all about defending civilization from an onslaught by barbarians from the east ... after all it wasn't long ago that the mongols were killing folks in poland ........

naqsh Iran is no threat to the US read fareed zakaria's latest article and he is a republican. you are right leave aside the us it cannot even atack israel because of MAD but it can and will become more bold and aggresive in its support to various elements which oppose Israel thus making life a bit harder and this the jewish lobby will not tolerate secondly it will make US mideast policy a little more respectful to Iran as also that of its other arab neighbours and may make some of them push for weapons themselves thereby creating a dangerous neighbourhood for Israel and possibly US mid east policy

because currently the world trades in US $$$s doesn't mean it always has to be so. Why cannot the euro replace the dollar?
We are well on a way to a European Superstate and this will help.

Re: # 80 not unless you change the international agreements (both overt and covert agreements) (by covert I mean those components which do not see the light of day).

The european superstate is fine but IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES LIKE THE US DOES TO BE ABLE TO Absorb the world trade. (apologies for the caps lock - keyboard got stuck). Europe stopped absorbing the world surplus when it gave up its empire. Now even Europe gets a cold if the US stops taking its stuff in.....

yes hamidm you are right just like ahmedenijad and alqaidi have a goal so do the neocons they believed that the rise of alqaia and other dictatorships like saddam and gadafi was due to US not supporting democracies in the past, they believed Iraq with the most educated population, secular govt and female participation and unpopular dictator as well as artificially justifable threat to the us/israel could be used to rally public opinion.

Iraw was a lab, but as Zakaria says that policy has ben a complete faliar because they didnot bet on the fundamental extremism of certain shias and sunnis and never put enough troops on the ground.

hamidm: "the world could have avoided the carnage of ww-ii if the leaders at that time had the gonads to invade nazi germany "
-------

people never remember what could have happened. they only remember what happened. some times it is better to let things happen.
presence of bad people in the set increases the importance of good people in the set.

I say, let iran have the bomb.
If you fear, they might drop it on jews, then may eb best course if to let them do that. you think Iran would be better off after that? may be 50 years after that event (if it happens) few iranians will sit in a cold cave hukkabaar and discuss bush in favorable terms:-) if that(bomb on jews) does not drop, then even better.

also the us thought they would be welcomed by the shias after they betrayed them in 91, and killed millions more through their support of one side and then the other in iran-iraw war but the shia have long memories as you can see every muharram

dash_dot euro denomination of oil by iran will not make as big a difference as you think it wont form more than 10 to 14% of world oil turnover. It is the arab states shift that will cause a major shift but even that will not make a significant diff to a US econ well over 12trillion us dollars.

naqsh the chinese will not dump their dollar reserves because that would itself plummett the value of dallars and thereby their own reseves. what they might do is not purchase any more dollars but that would mean allowing their currency to appreciate and thereby hiting their own export sector which is the main driver of their boom, so it is unlikely to be done in a big way

dash_dot euro denomination of oil by iran will not make as big a difference as you think it wont form more than 10 to 14% of world oil turnover. It is the arab states shift that will cause a major shift but even that will not make a significant diff to a US econ well over 12trillion us dollars.

naqsh the chinese will not dump their dollar reserves because that would itself plummett the value of dallars and thereby their own reseves. what they might do is not purchase any more dollars but that would mean allowing their currency to appreciate and thereby hiting their own export sector which is the main driver of their boom, so it is unlikely to be done in a big way

A strike on Iranian strategic interests is not only possible but it is making more and more business sense as the days go by. The following must be considered why and if attack happens;

1. Iran will be restricted to strike back effectively since US and Europe both have openly threatened to respond with a nuclear strike.

2. The Iranian retaliation in the region, that is, putting a hurdle in the Bay of Hormuz will only hurt Europeans, Japanese and Chinese interests; whereas US buys 90% of its oil from Venzuela and Canada. During the two Gulf wars there has been virtually no side effect on fuel prices with in america.

3. US economy is headed towards recession as it always does at the end of Republican reign. So as the prices of oil will go up elsewhere US business will resuscitate itself into life by offering cheap product due to a combination of low US exchange rate and unrestricted fuel supply.

4. An attack will force Iran's neghbors to buy more stockpiles of outdated weapons which US factories are producing 24/7 - an industry which was almost on the verge of collapse before 2nd Gulf war.

5. Iran has to be set as an example for the Latin American countries that are leaning towards socialism restricting private eneterprise.

6. The war profiteers like chenney and mercenaries like black water have tasted blood as the warfare has become a private enterprise. Currently, there are 160K+ mercanries working in Iraq it means 160K families in US owe their living by creating wars elsewhere (not to mention population directly involved in military industrial complex). That has emerged as a very strong voting lobby.

7. Christian religious nuts are itching for the war as well hoping that it will extend the stay of "Crusaders" in the lands where Jesus Christ (pbuh) will appear. Hoping that he will come and bless them for creating such murder and mayhem upon humanity.

8. White house spokesperson has expressed in unequivocal terms that Iran will NOT be attacked and there are no plans. It neans that there are plans in the works and its just a matter of time.

So I guess all stars are aligned. Iran's best option is to declare itself nuclear and threaten to wipe off all neigboring US client states if they aided and abbetted any attack on Iran.

let see who blinks first the iranians, the US or Israel it will be interesting. from all the big talk the us seems to have pushed itself into a corner

"2. The Iranian retaliation in the region, that is, putting a hurdle in the Bay of Hormuz will only hurt Europeans, Japanese and Chinese interests; whereas US buys 90% of its oil from Venzuela and Canada. During the two Gulf wars there has been virtually no side effect on fuel prices with in america."

urstruly oil is a fungible commodity i.e. its prices are determined on a global level plus or minus transportation costs, oil prices within the US have never deviated from international prices give or take costs of transport it doesnt matter wether it gets its oil from latin america they will sell the oil at the new higher inter. rates.

U are confusing oil prices with availability of oil; availability to the US will be unrestricted in any case because iran canot block global sea lanes and the us anyway has a strategic reserve for short term emergencies

Re: # 78 Posted by hamidm2 on October 30, 2007 10:15:28 am

[.... now why would they do that? ....]

large scale subjugation of people who don't give a rats ass about their civilization and still has enough juice to defend their homeland.

Re: # 56 Posted by tahmed32 on October 30, 2007 8:49:39 am

[hamimd: persians are white men. swatis are white men. tribal area boys are white men. so why are they not perfect??]

because they have beards, and their mouth is full of nuswaar.

bubba juice our prophet did not recognise any nationality, the only nationality was muslim.

$300 a barrel would be a boom for Solar energy and other alternate energy companies....
at $300 a barrel, a solar powered house, 1 electric powered commute car and 1 gas powered for long distances would make perfect sense.

dullahbhatti the problem is the price will not go and hold at 200 or 300, it will seesaw, jacklash/whiplash creating instability, stockmarkets especially of china and india and even in some oecd countries will plummett

The question is does Iran have the balls and the ability to strike at targets in the persian gulf after the US/Israel bombs it first?

Re: # 94

I think the stockmarkets in both Indian and Chian will not plumet there might be some turbulence thats it...

What is likely to happen is that alternative techs will be produced and they will produce greater economic strenght and the oil producers will be left behind cursing the day they started being head-strong and beleiving in their own strenght...

Dash dot you might be right but arent the stock markets in India and china already oevr bloated and anyway due for a correction, how much greater would be the impact of high oil prices, large curent acount deficits, inflationary pressures, Global recesion and regional political and economic instability

tahmed
ahmednijad might be a religous nut but he couldnt have chosen a better time to seek confrontation with the US/Israel than now with US forces occupied in afghanistan and iraq, his ability to make life tough for the US there, his leverage over oil, and he is purposely seeking confrontation with israel a)to win the sympathy of muslims and arabs and to prevent them assisting the US (in which he has succeeded with saudi and the gulf states requesting the US to desist, especially because they know it will hurt their resurgent economies and their real estate booms)

b)he knows that at some point confrontation was inevitable with both israel and the US if he were to build nukes what better time than now when there is so much antipathy against their policies in palestine and Lebanon (which he fueled) and Iraq (in which he/iran is playing good cop/bad cop) Kurdistan is another area where he could create problems or atleast choke oil from

If he succeeds he will become the only third world/muslim guy to get away with militarily challenging the US Hugo chavez is not nuclear armed remember

c)it makes him powerful domestically and regionally and gives iran prominence

d)

good cop bad cop in the sense he is preventing too much troubl so that shias remain in power but is assiting the shia and some say the sunnis too trhough training and explosives as he is doing in afghanistan.

but this is no diff. from the US policy of first supporting saddam to neutralize iran and when they saw saddam winning then resuming support to Iran in order to prevent him from winning during the iran iraq war

the question is does the US have the balls to attack or allow Israel to do so, though that will be stupid because Israeli attack will not be big enough to prevent a mojor iranian response in the persian gulf.

second question is once atacked does iran have the balls to respond strongly and thirdly will they have enough survivable strength to respond

and the iranians are not as stupid as you think they first offered to assist the US in Afghanistan because they had had a short skirmish with the taliban just short of a war, but the US rebuffed them and then came the axis of evil speech they knew they were in the US cross hair and that the US knew they were building nukes and would try to stop them that is when they started tying down the US in afghanistan and iraq. they didnt oppose the US invasion of Iraq hoping that after a thousand years finally shias will control baghdad and that the shia will be sympathetic too them creating a large belt of shia territory plus they could tie down the US through their agents and proxies,they are even assisting the alqaida elemnts

They know confrontation is inevitable then the best time is now. In fact it doesnt even matter democrat or republican the admin. will have to take action that is why Hillary is so encouraging she is hoping Bush does it so she doesnt cop the blame and when she is in office if things dont turn out well she can always blame the previous admin.

Zeemax#51:

In a historical sense, oil prices had started to go up before the Yom Kippur war. Ironically, it was the Shah of Iran, the staunch US ally who was the initiator of a higher oil price. He argued that oil producing countries were not getting a fair price, that the price of the commodities that they purchased had gone up manifold while the price of oil had remained unchanged for decades at around two dollars (yes folks, gas was 35 cents a gallon when I first filled my tank in the sixties). If I recall correctly, he was instrumental in creating OPEC and then raising the price by about 20% to above three dollars.

...and one should remember that the current price of $100 includes, to some extent, the risk of attack on Iran.

CreateAlpha#73:
"DM sahib, what is wrong with the fragmentation of the jihadi mindset across the world?"

Actually, even though shias and sunnys are fighting in Iraq, the umma is more united than ever before on perceiving the US as its enemy. This includes secular Turks, the wahabi Saudis, the Sunni and Shia Iraqis, the "moderate" Malaysians and Indonesians, the subcontinental Muslims and even those living in the West, barring a few exceptions; an attack on Iran will unite them more more. Nothing unites the Umma more than the slogan of "Islam in danger".

hamidm#78:

"..... or is it all about israel? "

The question suggests that you underestimate the importance of the neocon lobby.
But no, Iraq was not just about Israel. Dick Chenny's friends in the oil business have done very well, thank you, as has everyone associated with weapons industry and defence-related sectors of the economy.

This is the best geo strategic confrontation since the vietnam war, it will be short but its impact possibly global, and both parties are not completely rational, Bush listens to his inner voice, and ahmednijad sees angels. But both are restricted due to systemic constraints (yes ahmednijad is too, apparently the republican guard whom he he was supported by and inturn whom he made the most powerful interest group in Iran has apparently turned against its benefactor since they know they will be the first target in case of a US atack, plus there is the supreme religous council of the mullah's in Qom who actually control the military and police)

Bush is restricted by the compulsions of democratic politics and economic/military considerations but is also spurred by other compulsions like lobby groups, US security Interests and his inner voice.

Most interesting is what will be the regional and international fall out of this struggle and what course the military action will take.

Dost Mittar despite conspiracy theories Dick Cheney doesnot control Bush or the US military.

Ever