| •Main  |  • Drop Box  |  • Chat   |  • forum  |  • links  |  • YoNews   |  • Archives  |  • Contact  |  • Join Forum  |  • Donate  |  • Quick Post   |  

Occasion2b - first place on earth to see tomorrow   





Drag button to toolbar
or bookmarks to
post from any where




Full size


• General Discussion

• Pandemic Flu

Yonews Page

YoNews Portal

• All Things Prepper

• Game Area

• Archives









Status
Status

The sun Today


Right click and view
for larger image










Welcome, . Please login or register. Or not
         ~ Guest posting on ~
May 22, 2012    11:46:44 PM                                

• View most recent posts.

Please login with username and password

   Search:       Advanced search
  * Home Search Calendar Login Register
Occasion2B
                   

Pages:[1] Print Start new topic
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 05, 2008    02:24:21 AM »
A War of Self-Destruction

Source: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080804_a_war_of_self_destruction/
Posted on Aug 4, 2008

By Chris Hedges

An attack on Iran, which Israeli and Bush administration officials appear set to carry out if Iranian uranium enrichment is not halted, would ignite a regional war in the Middle East and lead to economic collapse and political upheaval in the United States.

“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times,” said William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy. “Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.”

The passage of vast amounts of oil and liquefied gas through the Persian Gulf would be disrupted. Iranian attacks, carried out with rocket- and bomb-equipped speedboats and submarines, would be deadly and effective. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times. Iranian oil, which makes up 8 percent of the world’s energy supply, would instantly be taken off the market. And oil would jump to over $500 a barrel and perhaps, as the conflict dragged on, to over $750 a barrel. Our petroleum-based economy would come to a halt.

Israel would be hit by Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Hezbollah, with its new store of Iranian-supplied rockets that allegedly can reach any part of Israel, including Israel’s nuclear plant at Dimona, would enter the conflict. Israel would lash back. Terrorist attacks on U.S. targets would become frequent. U.S. casualties in Iraq would mount as the Iranians rained missiles down on U.S. bases and installations, including our imperial city, the Green Zone. Chaos and mayhem would grip the Middle East. The world financial markets would go haywire.

“Even at today’s price, as you know, 14 airlines have gone out of business while others are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and most have curtailed service and laid off personnel,” said Polk, one of the country’s leading scholars of the Arab world. “At double or triple today’s price, none could fly unless nationalized. A whole range of other industries would be quickly drawn into the quicksand. Ironically, war would push America into a form of socialist economy.”

The U.S. economy is already tottering. We recently witnessed the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and there are fears that as many as 150 banks could fail over the next 12 to 18 months. There will be 6.5 million foreclosures over the next five years, according to Wall Street analysts. The government is furiously pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into private corporations to keep them afloat. The Congress bailed out the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bizarre “government-sponsored enterprises” own or guarantee half the mortgages in the country—some $5.1 trillion. The Federal Reserve evoked rarely used emergency powers to put billions of taxpayer dollars at risk to stop the meltdown of a non-bank, Bear Stearns, which it never regulated. More than $300 billion has been written down so far. Losses, by the time we are done, could exceed $1 trillion.

The already staggering debt generated by the war in Iraq would mushroom with an attack on Iran. Fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, we would soon be struggling to pay off a debt of at least two or three times the present amount. This is a weight the U.S. economy cannot bear, especially as the dollar tumbles against the euro and other major currencies. The government has borrowed abroad roughly a quarter of our annual national income in order to pay for the Iraq debacle. We have been told for the first time by a sovereign fund (South Korean, one of the world’s largest) that it will no longer buy U.S. Treasury bonds. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the final cost of the war in Iraq, once all the hidden costs are added up, could be as high as $7 trillion.

“Financial capitalism is crashing,” wrote independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. “So the lights are on late in Washington’s Federal Reserve, SEC and Treasury Department trying to figure out how socialism (your tax dollars and credits) can once again bail out these big-time gamblers with our money. ... Reckless, self-enriching capitalists get on your knees and thank the rescuing Washington socialists, for without them, you would surely be in chains.”

A war with Iran would also have grave political consequences. The specter of millions of Americans driven out of their homes, no longer able to afford basic necessities, out of work and enraged, would, as it has throughout history, embolden messianic right-wing and proto-fascist movements. Given the potential for social unrest, basic freedoms would be curtailed and in some cases abolished in the name of order and national security. The radical fringes of the Christian right could rise up with a vengeance. They would happily ally themselves with an assortment of oddballs, lunatics and corporate behemoths from Blackwater mercenaries to frightened capitalists at Halliburton. It was economic collapse, along with a climate of fear and instability, that was used to build the fascist and communist movements that plagued Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union during the last century. These same forces led to the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. We are not immune to these distortions.

But maybe those who advocate a war with Iran know all this. Maybe this is what they want. Maybe they understand that a war with Iran would finally kill off our weakened and anemic democracy. Maybe they see this as the dawn of a new era, an era when the last impediments to a global totalitarian capitalism can finally be removed and we can all be ground under the corporate jack boot, from Shanghai to New Delhi to Ohio. There are huge corporations that make obscene profits from human misery. They run our health care industry. They run our oil and gas companies. They run our bloated weapons industry. They run Wall Street and the major investment firms. They run our manufacturing firms. They also, ominously, run our government. 
Reply with quote
Anonymous


Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 05, 2008    04:59:19 PM »

I thought it was very interestinK when Brian Williams interviewed "I'mADinnerJacket" and he called the atomic bomb "So 20th century".

Brian later said on Jon Stewart's show that he wished he had asked DinnaJacket what he meant by that...what he had in mind for the 21st century's weapon.

Lately I have been reading woo-woo news suggesting Iran might use a oh heck, what do you call it?  Oh, yeah, an EMP.

A while back I read a bit about EMPs.  Some say they will destroy the usa for a long time; some say the effects might not be so bad.

I came to the conclusion they don't really know because no one has exploded one of these over a country.

I guess time will tell. i don't know

On the other hand, I see so much similarity between the current saber-rattling and 'playing to their bases' in the various parties comments about Iran and their nuclear program and the lead up to the Iraq invasion.  They seem to be playing the same song.  It is disconcerting to say the least.

Part of me thinks the cowboy still has something up his sleeve.  he isn't going to go quietly.

Reply with quote
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 06, 2008    02:01:58 AM »
something is bound to happen.

The Mideast is weaponizing themselves and taking offensive stances. Israel will have to do something about those 30,000 rockets in lebanon sooner or later. I doubt they will wait for Russia to fortify Syria's air defences also. I used to think that would would wake up to find Iran was attacked by an air raid overnight. I'm not so sure now. I don't see how they could justify to the israeli people attacking Iran without first doing something to protect their Northern border. I think Lebanon will be the first shots fired.

And the 500 dollar oil is a little out of line. Before oil would hit 500 it would also be rationed to the extent of essential services only and military.

 we had an assassination last week of a hezbollah go between. I think i would also look for a couple more assignations and or air defences being breached. That might be a signal that the war is a go.
Reply with quote
Morgan


Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 06, 2008    04:32:00 PM »


it's coming soon

i really think it will happen before the cowboy leaves office







 really sad



Lords of Kobol help us all
Reply with quote
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 07, 2008    02:12:19 AM »
WASHINGTON: Amid rising speculation about the possibility of an Israeli or US bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, a major study produced for the US Air Force by a top defense think tank concluded that US military action against Iran was "likely to have negative effects for the United States."

The study, by the RAND Project AIR FORCE, a division of the California-based RAND Corporation, was released July 9, the same day that Tehran test-fired missiles in an apparent response to reports the previous week that Israel had carried out secret exercises designed to simulate a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities the previous month.

But amid all the fireworks, the report, which also called for a multi-faceted strategy designed to encourage democratic development in Iran, was ignored by the mainstream media.

Entitled "Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities," the 156-page report also called for Washington to "tone down" its policy statements supporting "regime change" and to "discourage Iranian ethnic groups from revolting against the regime." Both policies, it said, are likely to be counter-productive.

Instead, according to the three main authors of the study, Washington should adopt a more patient approach, "designed to create conditions for effective relations [with Tehran] over the long haul."

As with the Soviet Union, with "Iran, the US government will again need to keep an eye on the long term, communicating with the current government but also encouraging more discussion among Iranians and more contacts and interactions between Iranians and Americans."

"Societies and governments change. The US government has some ability to foster favorable trends in Iran, but these policies will take time to come to fruition," said the report, which also noted that Iran "appears to be on its way to becoming a nuclear power."

Speculation about a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has, in fact, subsided somewhat over the past three weeks, although the issue has flared again as a result of successive visits by Israel's chief of staff and defense minister, Ehud Barak, over the past week. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that top US officials had reassured Barak that the military option was still "on the table."

Still, most analysts believe that while such an attack - either by Israel or the US - remains possible, it is not probable, if for no other reason than the military brass in the Pentagon, especially the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has made his opposition to the idea increasingly clear over the past month.

In addition, the decision to send a high-ranking State Department official to participate for the first time in talks 10 days ago with Iran as part of the "Five+1" process that also involves France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China has been taken as a signal that Washington is increasingly committed to diplomacy as the means to address its concern over Tehran's nuclear program.

If, in addition, the State Department receives White House approval for opening an Interests Section in Tehran - a move that is currently the subject of discussions at the highest level of the administration - the likelihood of an attack before President George W. Bush leaves office will recede even further.

In that respect, the RAND study bolsters those who favor engagement with Iran, even as it also supports the maintenance of certain kinds of sanctions, notably the embargo on certain high-tech gas liquefaction technologies, as a bargaining chip for future negotiations with Tehran. To increase pressure on the regime, the report also recommends expanding contingency plans to seize Iranian foreign bank and commercial accounts and encouraging US allies to bar certain Iranian officials associated with the nuclear program from obtaining visas for foreign travel.

As for the possibility of an attack, however, the report is clear that such an option will almost certainly be counter-productive, particularly with respect to Washington's hopes that it could result in diminished support for the regime or even its overthrow.

"A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and operation of nuclear enrichment facilities," it said. "If Iran's facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread."

The most likely response, indeed, would be a "strong push to retaliate (as) [c]ritics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent" in the nationalist backlash that would ensue.

Moreover, such an attack "would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program," according to the authors. While it might set back the economy in certain ways, the resulting increase in oil prices would enable the government "to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences."

Another option, a blockade of Kharg Island, Iran's main loading terminal, or the Straits of Hormuz to prevent Iranian oil from being exported, would indeed have a "devastating effect" on Iran's economy, but it would also "probably do more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it," according to the report, which also noted the likelihood that such a step would ensure a sharp rise in global oil prices and probably result in Iranian attacks on tanker traffic in the Gulf.

The report also warned against covert action programs designed to aid minority opposition groups, as "Iranian security forces have convincingly shown that they can handle restive ethnic groups, and violent opposition to Iranian rule is more likely to entrench the current security and political forces than to elicit a positive change in regime policies."

Instead, Washington should concentrate its efforts on fostering conditions for a more pluralistic Iran in favor of a more patient approach toward a regime that the report said "most Iranians perceive ... as legitimate." It called for greater funding for programs that facilitate contacts between Iranians and US citizens and to encourage US officials and citizens to provide interviews and commentary for Iranian media.

"At the same time, it should "mute US policy statements advocating regime change" as the government often uses these as "an excuse for detaining individuals seeking more freedom."

The report also calls for support of IMF and World Bank efforts to encourage better economic management and cease opposition to Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization.


Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=94802
Reply with quote
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 07, 2008    01:16:23 PM »
the march goes on  march


2 more carriers heading to the gulf

us accuses iran of messing in iraq


rice , all options on the table ( they have to come out and say that once in a while, i think to keep the price of oil high. ) green blobber

Reply with quote
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 07, 2008    01:27:25 PM »
i think somethings up.
Russia seems like they are starting to bail with the security council solidarity.

the rhetoric is heating up but it seems like the mainstream is ignoring it.

i just got that feeling. sooner or later. May be they decided sooner is the way to go. Don't want to leave it to the next administrations. both Israels and the usa's only got a couple of months to go.

-------------------------------

   
   
JPost.com » The Iranian Threat » Article
Aug 7, 2008 14:57 | Updated Aug 7, 2008 20:16
'2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf'
By ADAM GONN, THE MEDIA LINE NEWS AGENCY


Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.

Russia plays down talks of tougher sanctions against Iran

Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.

The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."

While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.


Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Reply with quote
Morgan


Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 07, 2008    07:14:15 PM »

I saw the Rice comment on Drudge and I thought, Uh, oh, this sounds so familiar.  Just like the pre-iraq invasion rhetoric.


spooky stuff!



It shouldn't be too hard to get some confirmation on the air craft carriers' movements.  Hopefully within the next few days, they'll be spotted and we will know for sure

 march
Reply with quote
beast
Hero Member
Posts: 9388


Occasion2B
WWW
Re: A War of Self-Destruction
« Aug 08, 2008    12:07:51 AM »
I'd look for something involving Syria and Hezbollah first.

Israel will try to pit Syria against Iran some how.

just like you didn't here much noise last year when Israel bombed syria. Israel will try to set it up so that Syria sits it out when they go ahead and attack Iran , i think.

 dosn't mean it will work though The cow
Reply with quote
Pages: [1] Print Start new topic 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Twitter Mod created by 2by2host.com - a web hosting company
| Sitemap