Iran

[ddmoit]

Here's an interesting analysis of the prospects of an attack against Iran. The author is Gary North. I have great respect for his opinion on a number of topics.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north638.html

It's not the kind of analysis you're likely to find in the mainstream media. Ultimately, the main point of the analysis is to inspire individuals to consider how an attack against Iran will impact their personal economic situations.

[Sponsored Links]

[HS345]

Is the dollar the only thing you ever think of Dan?:D

[sandbagger]

this is hardly original thinking. A piece by John Bolton I saw awhile back comes to mind. In fact, this looks like a bit of plagiarism, and I think I trust Bolton's opinion a lot more than some guy who claims to be an economist with a website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html

I also find it a bit curious that an "economist" only looks at the short term and says nothing about potential long-term consequences of the options he discusses. Basically, there are 3 scenarios that seem most likely:

1. Iran is left alone and goes nuclear. We know what happens next.
2. Iran is left alone and does not go nuclear. Popular theory among ostriches, but highly unlikely.
3. A military strike takes out the Iranian facilities.

Most people recognize that #2 will only have a chance if the current regime is deposed. Fat chance of that, especially with their cozy relationship with China and Russia.

[tilerite]

Hmmmmm, no I better not :uhh:

[jvcstone]

Iran is left alone and goes nuclear. We know what happens next.

Please Art, enlighten us. What does happen if Iran "goes nuclear"

Do you really believe that they would commit national suicide by making a first strike against a country with some 200 nukes in it's arsenal??? I know that your neocon idols would like us to believe that, but remember--they are the same folks who lied us into the current mess, and only an idiot would believe them now.

An unprovoked, or preemptive attack on another country doing (apparently) nothing more than what it has every right to do according to the IAEA and our own highly funded intelligence community could not possibly be in our best national interest.

JVC

[kilroy]

hmmmmmm... prospects of an attack against Iran.
I can think of a long list of negative possible and likely consequences but not one good thing. All this saber rattling is foolish and will eventually lead to someone doing something really stupid.

I just saw this add last night for a little snack bag. It started off with a peanut set up like a domino then they started adding a bunch of different nuts in the domino lines and it all runs into a bag at the end. They called their own product,"an extraordinary nut sack".

I think the three major "Religious" players here are all nuts.

You have the radical Jews who think that they alone are God's chosen people and the rest of humanity are like cattle. They are waiting for their Messiah to come destroy all their enemies so they can live in paradise.

You have the radical Muslims who think that they alone are Gods chosen people. They want to kill or convert all infidels and force all people to live by their laws. They are waiting for their 12th Inman(? whoever) to come destroy all their enemies so they can live in paradise.

You have the radical Christians who think that they and the Jews are Gods chosen people. They want to end abortion and gay marriage and see the battle of Armageddon so Jesus will come back and destroy all their enemies so they can live in paradise.

What an extraordinary nut sack.

[sandbagger]

Do you really believe that they would commit national suicide by making a first strike against a country with some 200 nukes in it's arsenal??? in a word - YES. :nod:

history tells us that this is a very real possibility, and to ignore it is the ultimate in arrogant foolishness. MAD worked with the old USSR, but this is an ideology that glorifies death. Just ask yourself a simple question - did you ever hear about a Soviet suicide bomber? :shrug:

if Ahmadinawhakjob gets a nuke he'll use it or give it to a surrogate to use it for him.

[kilroy]

how do you know he doesn't already have one?

[MudMaker]

how do you know he doesn't already have one?

because they're not as bright as they say they are... :)

[kilroy]

who says they built it?

[FrankFLA]

Those two articles sure look alike.

From the articles looks like Israel is the biggest threat to the peace. They are going to bomb a country to drag us into it all. Seems the simple solution is to invade/bomb Israel first.
Lets face it they are the only country over there that we haven't done the friend today/enemy tommorow thing with. Might as well get it out of the way. Besides they don't have any oil.



Frank

[sandbagger]

history also shows us that the radical Islamofascists have never acquired a weapon they didn't use. The fact that they haven't used a nuke means only that they either don't have it or the acquisition is pretty recent. They are at war with us whether we want to acknowledge it or not. From the articles looks like Israel is the biggest threat to the peace. hmmmmm.... are you sure you want to go there? That sounds a whole like the whackjob running Iran (with the permission of the clerics, that is). :rolleyes:

[FrankFLA]

hmmmmm.... are you sure you want to go there? That sounds a whole like the whackjob running Iran (with the permission of the clerics, that is).

(How do you do that quote thing?)

Well Art that is kinda my point. Who is the whackjob depends on where you live and who has their missles pointed at ya. How would we react towards a county that invaded Canada, told us we couldn't have nukes, and threated to bomb us if we did?

As you show it is fine for us to call for bombing Iran but not Israel. Well how about Saudi Arabia? That is where most all the 9/11 guys were from why not bomb them? Seems to me there is no logic at all to our policies over there other than oil and money.

Look at our history over there. Old Sadam was our big buddy when he was fighting with Iran. Reagan send good old Rummy over to meet with him. We even continued to support him with cash and arms after he used WMDs in 1980s. Wouldn't that make us guilty of State sponsored terrorism? We also have one of the largest stockpiles of WMDs. I guess we need to put ourselves on the axis of evil list. We also need to understand why some people over there may have a chip on their shoulder.

I agree that dealing with the goberments over there is difficult. I just don't see any good solutions coming from blowing more stuff up over there no matter who or what you blow up. You also have these guys called Russia and China who seem to support them.


My solution is we get the heck out of that entire part of the world. Put our missle defence system here rather than Europe. Then we sit down and talk. And while we talk we take all that money we are spending on that part of the world and we secretly design a way to drill around the world and suck the oil right out from under them!

Frank

[John K]

Israel will more than likely be there first target, as they have stated about blowing them off the map.

Let Iran and Israel fight it out. Let Israel bomb their nuke sites, while we revert back to our eighties defense shield, "Star Wars". Three war fronts would spread us a little thin.. :)

[tilerite]

Yeah, those darned Israeli's are such a threat to peace. Here's a people who came to the Middle East after almost being wiped out, simply looking for a place to exists and from day one, they have been under threat of annihilation. so instead of being the pansies they were in Europe during WWII, they learn to defend themselves, with our help of course, and now that they're one of the baddest mama jamma's around, they're suddenly the bad guys. That's funny. All I got to say is; God Bless the Israeli's and thank goodness we have them in that stinking part of the world.! If they were left alone, they wouldn't bother a soul. That's my rant for the day. :tongue:

[ddmoit]

Here's a people who came to the Middle East after almost being wiped out, simply looking for a place to exist...Had they been able to find some nice, uninhabited beach-front property, we might not be having this discussion.:)

[jvcstone]

Yeah, those darned Israeli's are such a threat to peace. Here's a people who came to the Middle East after almost being wiped out, simply looking for a place to exists and from day one, they have been under threat of annihilation. so instead of being the pansies they were in Europe during WWII, they learn to defend themselves, with our help of course, and now that they're one of the baddest mama jamma's around, they're suddenly the bad guys. That's funny. All I got to say is; God Bless the Israeli's and thank goodness we have them in that stinking part of the world.! If they were left alone, they wouldn't bother a soul. That's my rant for the day.

Wow Rick, that certainly is a nice piece of revisionistic history. Not much of it is very factual. And, all you need to do is read their history (the old testament) to realize Israel has never--I repeat never, been a peaceful nation. War mongers with the best of them.

JVC

[e3]

Why is it that no one can have these weapons but us?
(or our friends of the week) If I thought my neighbor was out to get me ,and had weapons,I might want to get a couple myself. Why do we have ,what we have? Maybe to keep up with our enemy's?
'WHY CANNT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG"?
ok -now everyone join hands!!

[ddmoit]

Ron Paul has pointed out previously that our government may actually encourage 3rd rate countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Look what happens to the countries that manage to get them. We throw money at them! Just ask India, Pakistan, and even North Korea.

Not only does the threat of invasion by the US go down, but you get showered with US dollars (OK, not the prize it once was these days, but it's still somethin'.)

[HS345]

Eric, If you don't already know the answer to your question, there's no point in trying to explain it to you.:)

[tilerite]

Wow Rick, that certainly is a nice piece of revisionistic history. Not much of it is very factual. And, all you need to do is read their history (the old testament) to realize Israel has never--I repeat never, been a peaceful nation. War mongers with the best of them.

I was talking about the last 60 years in which virtually every war and conflict they have been a part of has been in self defense. With the weaponry they possess, if they were the war mongers you claim they are, they could have destroyed Syria and Iran, to name a few. That is factual no matter how you want to spin it.

[John K]

"Had they been able to find some nice, uninhabited beach-front property, we might not be having this discussion." :lol1:

I forgot how to do the "quote in blue"

[ddmoit]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/IAEA_suspects_fraud_in_evidence_for_1109.html

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.

The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.

[MudMaker]

John... It's this one.. Highlite the quote and click on this

[sandbagger]

while the possibility posed by the IAEA can't be ignored, the possibility has always existed. We also have to consider the track record of the IAEA. Gathering intelligence is never an exact science. We know that Saddam actually wanted us to believe he had WMD, and you have to wonder if the wackos in Iran are playing the same game. Or not.

we do know one thing from history's lessons. If Islamofascist wackos get a weapon they will use it. :sick:

[HS345]

Art,
How could you say such a thing? That is so mean spirited.

Don't you know islamofascist whackos have feelings too? :cry:

[sandbagger]

you mean like this? (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/266646.php) :rolleyes:

[MudMaker]

Ya see.. this is the kinda thing I consider to be "Back Door" stuff. :) Little things that don't pop out as BIG but in the end when all the little things are added up - it's sumthin.. :)

[sandbagger]

the politics of incremantalism - based on the same theory as the question, "how do you eat an elephant?" answer: one bite at a time.

oh, btw - caught part of Hannity's interview with Newt today. Sean posed the question, straight up - "Will you consider running for president in 2012?" Newt didn't hesitate: "Yes." Sean was obviously caught off-guard, and before he could say much, Newt stressed that he only said 'yes' to "considering" a run. That's ok - best news I've heard all week. Now if I can just get Jindal to say the word...... :rolleyes:

[ceramictec]

I had to do it...... and IRAN... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUjIA3Rt7gk)

[ddmoit]

I'll see your video and raise you, Brian.:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQiIkz7J5Y

[ceramictec]

are they talking about all Iranian property in the US or wherever we cant get it ?


CNN Breaking News -- The U.S. has filed suit to seize properties, including mosques, belonging to groups with alleged ties to Iran.

[ceramictec]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_forfeiture