I'd like to see that film. But as usual i'll have no idea how to do so.
a near future bleak landscape for the world...?
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
I'd like to see that film. But as usual i'll have no idea how to do so.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Just tune into commondreams in particular. I take my colleague's word over the global research site, although i have on occasion looked at it.
I used to read commondreams regularly but it just got depressing. So i'll have to leave you or anyone on this thread to find it.
My reasons for posting this thread were to get other sane views from urban posters on the likelihood of the scenario that these websites paint.
What is that?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
This work?
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=93
A portmanteau is a word made from two other words
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
a word made up from two or more words. so Conspiraloon comes from conspiracy+luntic
Lewis Carrol was good at inventing them
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
As pointed out by others its a word, and the phenomena to which it refers exist, and much of it is characterised by a mix of stupidy and insanity. In that it mirrors the politicians you claim to despise - and in more ways than one i suspect
Thanks for the link. However i feel that a 99 minute film will never download on my internet connection! i'm lucky if i get 15 minutes without a drop out.
But looking at the thesis of it, i know full well about the transfer of US taxpayers' money into the hands of corporations, and how war conveniently affords such opportunities.
And how the media allow it to happen... wonder why...
Get it right lad. I've never claimed to despise politicians. I have many things to say about them, but i don't hate them.
"The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says it has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran.
But his latest remarks suggest he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it, he says."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm
But his latest remarks suggest he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it, he says."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Has Alex Jones been shouting horrible things in your face again with that bloody loudspeaker? Just ignore him, he's an attention seeker, that is all.
I could see America, or more likely Israel, bombing nuclear facilities in Iran, if they feel that the Iranians are really on the verge of making their own nuclear bombs and missiles, and at the same time those weapons would be under the control of someone mad enough to use them first.
But they would not do this with nukes, rather with conventional bombs.
The only way I could see the USA using its nukes would be if someone else did so first.
Or did something truly horrific with other types of "WMD" (i.e. chemical or biological weapons) against America.
Giles..
But they would not do this with nukes, rather with conventional bombs.
The only way I could see the USA using its nukes would be if someone else did so first.
Or did something truly horrific with other types of "WMD" (i.e. chemical or biological weapons) against America.
Giles..
Woollyredhat
Active Member
Maybe Bush will do a Putin on it and make himself the head of the new post, Prime Minister.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
He would not be long for this world if that happened.
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
I think the economy's a bigger worry right now than the will he / won't he bombing of Iran. The way prices are rising atm, and with no apparent end in sight, is truly scary.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, we know for a fact that the US and Israel are *talking* about bombing Iran and offering a rationale based on suppressing Iranian nuclear programmes.
If we analyse the practicalities though, it pretty quickly becomes obvous that they have no chance whatsoever of materially affecting Iranian nuclear programmes by bombing. An all-out attempt would involve using nukes against deep sites and also stuff like bombing university campuses, with massively mediapathic loss of life and in any case would still almost certainly fail.
So I think the first question to ask is what do they think they could gain by talking about it and the second question is what do they think they could bomb on the basis of that excuse, that would be worthwhile in terms of stuff they really care about.
If we analyse the practicalities though, it pretty quickly becomes obvous that they have no chance whatsoever of materially affecting Iranian nuclear programmes by bombing. An all-out attempt would involve using nukes against deep sites and also stuff like bombing university campuses, with massively mediapathic loss of life and in any case would still almost certainly fail.
So I think the first question to ask is what do they think they could gain by talking about it and the second question is what do they think they could bomb on the basis of that excuse, that would be worthwhile in terms of stuff they really care about.
Past experience tells us that US presidents are capable of wiping out cities with nuclear bombs, not as retaliation, but as pre-emptive strikes.
And pre-emptive is something they do very well, such is their bloodlust fueled by their greed and egos.
As for chemical and biological weapons, they've used both in iraq, vietnam, laos, and no doubt other nations. They're well versed in the machinery of snuffing out innocent civilians.
Born killers the US.
Asking sane questions of insane people is not necessarily going to provide the answers we need mate...
The economy is of no concern to the madmen in charge. They fight their wars for various objectives, an important one being to transfer the taxpayers' money into their own pockets.
The rise in prices and oil is merely part of the grand game that is played out in a rampant capitalist system. Cheney and bush and others are near the end of their power in office, get the money while they can. Plunder and destroy is the motto.
Past experience is irrelevant here, though, isn't it?
The circumstances are totally and utterly different. In 1945 the US had been fighting an all-out war against an increasingly fanatical and desperate opponent for several years, and wanted to bring it to a quicker conclusion.
Now they are not.
Also, they had just invented nuclear weapons, and wanted to see what they could do, and they wanted to impress the Russians. Now, everyone knows what they can do, partly because of what happened back then, and this makes their use far less acceptable, especially in terms of "first use".
You simply cannot come out with comments like "US presidents are capable of wiping out cities with nuclear bombs" as if this had been done on several occasions, because it is just not true, is it?
Giles..
I can, because evidence from history irrefutably backs up my comment. It's your baggage going on about 'several occasions'. I never said that, you just interpreted it. I talked about the fact that in the past an american president has used nuclear weapons to wipe out two cities. It's fact.
And past experience is never irrelevant. Precedence is rather a big thing in human behaviour, and indeed, a lot of sway is given this in courts.
Taboos, once they have become broken, become much more breakable in the future. That is in essence what my thread is about. It is precisely because they've used them before, when there was no need to, that they may well use them again. The first time has occurred. The next time is easier. Especially for born killers.
Well, you said "US presidents ....." plural, as if this had happened on several occasions. The circumstances then were unprecedented.
The sheer numbers of people being killed on both sides was several orders of magnitude bigger than anything that is going on at the moment.
Why do you think that the USA would risk using nuclear weapons on Iran?
Giles..
Where's the risk mate?
The main reason i think they might do it is that those in power are, to my thinking, insane.
They've proved it many times over.
Where's the risk!?
Oh, you're right, I don't see any risk or fallout (no pun intended!) from the USA's use of nuclear weapons against a country that they are not even at war with.
In a few months GWB won't be president any more. He may be stupid, but he is not, I think, insane. Greedy and ignorant, yes. But not insane.
I will bet you £100 that the Americans don't use nuclear weapons on Iran in the next two years.
Are you up for taking this bet?
(of course, if you are right, and WW3 then kicks off, you will have to come and find me hiding in my bunker to get your money!)
Giles..
I started this thread to get posters' views on the theory that bush and his mob will attack iran with nuclear weapons, then call a state of emergency, thereby cancelling any election, under powers all set in place.
I'm not saying i agree with this theory, rather that it comes from pretty reasonable sources, and i've seen plenty of mad actions from this crew in the last eight years. Furthermore, the country has twice used nuclear bombs to wipe out cities, and on numerous times used biological weapons. There never seemed to be any risk in retrospect, coz they're never punished for their use of these ghastly weapons on entirely innocent people.
And i will have to disagree over bush. I've seen him talking on the tv only about half a dozen times in his reign, and obviously read many of his quotes, and if ever a man was insane, this is him.
Recall that they had no reasons, or right, to invade the two countries they have done. They don't have the resources i think to invade iran, so their only recourse if they do want to take their PNAC agenda to the next stage is a nuclear bomb in iran.
But i won't be betting you, like i said, i don't actually think this will happen, but it most certainly would not surprise me.
Anyway, betting is illegal in thailand...!
The US is already fighting a covert war in Iran based on supporting and funding Islamic fundamentalist groups (including 'Al-Qaeda'), with the aim of destabilising the Iranian regime.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Of course as you say, they have threatened to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities on many occasions. I don't see how they could back away from this, as Iran does not appear to be taking any notice of these threats. They are gradually building a case, based on lies of course. For example the highly dubious claim that Iran is materially supporting and funding Iraqi Shia militias,
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/15/brownback-attack-iran/
whilst in fact the opposite is undeniably true; that America is funding Sunni extremists that have carried out terrorist attacks in Iran. The other pretext is the lie that Iran has threatened to 'Wipe Israel off the map', which is a complete mistranslation.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
So where are they going with all this? It looks to me like they are establishing a pretext. Whilst it is alleged, and disputed that Iran is supporting Shiite militias to try and destabilise Basra, British SAS forces where caught driving round with guns and explosives dressed as Arabs:
The controversy centered on the fact that Britain had to rescue these guys from Iraqi custody, not on what they where up to in the first place. In fact, Iran was responsible for brokering the ceasefire that ended the recent 'Battle of Basrah'.
It seems to me that the Bush administration is ready and willing for airstrikes, and has attempted to deploy them. But they have been restrained by Pentagon officials and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who feared what the consequences would be, i.e. an escalation to a full scale conflict with Iran:
It is the Bush Administration that is responsible for the covert war with Iran that I referred to earlier. I wouldn't go as far to call them insane, that is probably accurate in some respects but is also probably inadequate. However words such as duplicitous and ruthless accurately describe them amongst others.
I'm pessimistic that a new American president will make a very great difference. Certainly not in the case of John McCain, who I think will win. Obama has spoken about engaging in more dialogue with Tehran, so perhaps we would see some difference there. In any case it looks like the joint chiefs of staff are not stupid enough to go down this road. The actual powerbrokers however, most certainly are.
The pretexts that have been built up are clearly false, and given the fact that Iran has abandoned all interest in a nuclear weapons programme years ago (as unanimously agreed by American intelligence agencies), what is the real motivation to threaten and (if they could) attack Iran?
Iran is apparently pursuing a massive programme of privatisation and 'free-market' invitation to foreign investors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9501 :
So these companies that are already investors in Iran would naturally have a big competitive advantage over America, already having the infrastructure and ties in place to take advantage of this further privatisation.
That would be an explanation of why the Bush administration does indeed want to attack Iran. It is an agenda of Anglo-American hegemony and the influence of powerful vested interests such as the MIC and any mercenaries who decide to jump on the bandwagon.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Oh dont be silly, the economy is probably even more important to those who have money, and indulge in plunder, than the have-nots.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
ffs
They've been "leaking" that there might be an attack on Iran for the last five bloody years, or more, about every six months, or less.
Twats have been posting things on bulletin boards during the same period each time saying "look! they're going to attack Iran! omg!" Normally they don't follow that up with "...and then establish the new world order!" but occasionally it seems that they do.
They've been "leaking" that there might be an attack on Iran for the last five bloody years, or more, about every six months, or less.
Twats have been posting things on bulletin boards during the same period each time saying "look! they're going to attack Iran! omg!" Normally they don't follow that up with "...and then establish the new world order!" but occasionally it seems that they do.
Similar threads
