a near future bleak landscape for the world...?

[fela fan]

Thanks for that post eddy, you must have put a lot of effort into that. It seems resonant with past methods used by the US. I'm impressed with your detail, and as you well point out, the pretext is what the US are establishing. This again is in line with their usual methods prior to 'rearranging' nations that are not behaving as they 'should'.

As usual it's all about money, the american political elites wanting more and more of it.

It's kind of interesting to see a nation's military restraining its political leadership. Normally it's the other way round in our world...

 

[fela fan]

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.

This post stands in quite stark contrast to the one posted by eddyblack just above it.

Just about every single notion put forward is based on your subjective interpretations.

five or more years, every six months, about
twats posting 'things'
normally... occasionally

And everything you posted is reason enough for posters to accept that the US will not be attacking iran in some way?

 

[frogwoman]

I'll be very surprised if the US attacks Iran.

 

[fela fan]

I'll be very surprised if the US attacks Iran.

Yes, i can see that. But based on their past behaviour it would not shock me if they were to.

However, reading eddy's well researched post, and based on its contents, their prime objective is just to get iran's resources into their pockets, and are using various methods including threats to try and coerce their way to their objectives.

Most times the US get their hands on nations' (or more strictly, the peoples of those nations) resources through means that do not include military strikes. They do it in similar ways as outlined in eddy's post (which i'm sure you know all about!), behind the sights and observation of the 'free' peoples in the western nations.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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..

In the past, a German leader marched 6 million naked jews into gas chambers and ovens.

What should we take from that about Angela Merkl?

 

[fela fan]

In the past, a German leader marched 6 million naked jews into gas chambers and ovens.

What should we take from that about Angela Merkl?

I don't know johnny. What should you take from that? But i'll not be taking anything from such a pathetic irrelevant question, although i'm sure you'll be along in a minute to explain its relevance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't know johnny. What should you take from that? But i'll not be taking anything from such a pathetic irrelevant question, although i'm sure you'll be along in a minute to explain its relevance.

Just pointing to another 'fact', like yours above.

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.

I'd say those two historical facts have about the same weight.

 

[EddyBlack]

This report looks a little worrying:

Iran has resumed A-bomb project, says West

'Iran has resumed work on constructing highly sophisticated equipment that nuclear experts say is primarily used for building atomic weapons, according to the latest intelligence reports received by Western diplomats.'

The previous agreement from the intelligence community that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons was the main factor that made me think an attack would have been unlikely. Now even this looks doubtful. Perhaps those forces restraining the likes of Cheney will now be fatally undermined.

 

[isitme]

The fact that nuclear bombs exist mean that there is always a risk of armageddon

But I don't think there is as much risk of this happening as there was in the 60s, or during the collapse of the Soviet Union. I agree with what butchersapron and YuwipiWoman said on page one, the world seems a lot safer than it did a few years ago,

 

[fela fan]

The previous agreement from the intelligence community that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons was the main factor that made me think an attack would have been unlikely. Now even this looks doubtful. Perhaps those forces restraining the likes of Cheney will now be fatally undermined.

PNAC's work is not complete. Their last chance saloon for the current time is for the republicans to retain power. If they lose it to the democrats, then they're out of office and cannot deliver the US they want.

I suggest that cheney perle and all the others are very dangerous animals right now. We know how they twist intelligence to suit their own purposes...

And i also personally think it's dangerous to underestimate bush's level of insanity.

The main plank of 'evidence' that the US had to go into iraq was britain's insistence that saddam had nuclear weapons that could be mobilised in 40 minutes.

All the rhetoric and bullshit we saw over iraq we are seeing again over iran.

I have also seen various american politicians urging usage of nuclear bombs against iran.

Personally i think it looks somewhat grave.

 

[fela fan]

The fact that nuclear bombs exist mean that there is always a risk of armageddon

But I don't think there is as much risk of this happening as there was in the 60s, or during the collapse of the Soviet Union. I agree with what butchersapron and YuwipiWoman said on page one, the world seems a lot safer than it did a few years ago,

Yes, you could be agreed with to a certain degree had you talked about the western world, primarily US and UK and Russia.

But most of the world is not safer, due to the terrorist activities of the anglo-american hegemony.

But in any case, the nuclear threat is not a threat for US or UK citizens. It is a threat for iranian citizens who may be at the end of an american nuclear bomb, with no possibility of retaliation, simply because iran don't have any of their own bombs. If they did, the US could/would not attack them.

It is not armageddon that we face, rather a further shutdown of any freedoms you have left in the UK and in particular in the US.

You might do yourself a favour by researching the agenda of PNAC.

 

[EddyBlack]

PNAC's work is not complete. Their last chance saloon for the current time is for the republicans to retain power. If they lose it to the democrats, then they're out of office and cannot deliver the US they want.

I suggest that cheney perle and all the others are very dangerous animals right now. We know how they twist intelligence to suit their own purposes...

And i also personally think it's dangerous to underestimate bush's level of insanity.

The main plank of 'evidence' that the US had to go into iraq was britain's insistence that saddam had nuclear weapons that could be mobilised in 40 minutes.

All the rhetoric and bullshit we saw over iraq we are seeing again over iran.

I have also seen various american politicians urging usage of nuclear bombs against iran.

Personally i think it looks somewhat grave.

I think all this goes back to the PNAC kind of thinking that you refer to. That is the desperation for America to extend an exclusive sphere of influence throughout the Middle East. Clearly many people around the Bush administration want to see airstrikes, but having been stalled so far they are doing the next best thing by waging economic and covert military attacks on Iran.

I haven’t seen any American politicians outrightly calling for nuclear strikes (it wouldn’t surprise me though), but an attack on Iran would no doubt see a retaliation. The consequences in terms of military and civilian deaths, and economic instability would be very grim probably.

I can’t see how attacks would get the go ahead in the current climate, but I think it is likely that they will come sooner or later for what its worth. It seems the corrupt gangsters in the White House amongst others have no worries about consequences, and are looking for an attack. People may dismiss the possibility as unlikely (because it would be very stupid and disastrous etc.), but the will at least is there I think.

On the other hand they have already got as far as agreements for economic sanctions and are waging a covert war already it seems, so perhaps they will see how it plays out. These guys certainly think long term, i.e. the permanent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and fostering the instabilities that allow them to remain. Its funny that they invaded Afghanistan for harboring Al-Qaeda training camps, but now they are funding Sunni extremists in Iran!

The Telegraph report was very non-specific. I think it would be a very important story if it wasn’t just some bullshit, and I haven’t seen it repeated anywhere else yet. As you imply, it sounds like the ‘Dodgy Dossier’ kind of stuff all over again. That particular report was based on pathetically feeble sources, yet we went to war on it. It was clearly cooked up. Its hard to imagine they could pull the old ‘we can’t tell you any more for national security purposes’ routine again without having solid undeniable evidence that Iran was indeed on course for having nuclear weapons. Of course ‘intelligence’ can be found to suit the agenda if need be.

 

[fela fan]

I can’t see how attacks would get the go ahead in the current climate, but I think it is likely that they will come sooner or later for what its worth. It seems the corrupt gangsters in the White House amongst others have no worries about consequences, and are looking for an attack. People may dismiss the possibility as unlikely (because it would be very stupid and disastrous etc.), but the will at least is there I think.

This is the key thing, the will is there by these PNAC corrupt gangsters - like the term.

This report from the toronto sun is typical of stories coming out these days and just makes the whole scenario of the US attacking iran, and with nuclear weapons, so likely and so possible.


"The highly regarded American journalist Seymour Hersh just confirmed that the U.S. Congress authorized a $400-million plan to overthrow Iran’s government and incite ethnic unrest. This column reported a year ago that U.S. and British special forces were operating in Iran, preparing for a massive air campaign. Israel’s destruction of an alleged Syrian reactor last fall was a warning to Iran.

This week a Pentagon official claimed an Israeli attack on Iran was coming before year end.

Other Pentagon and CIA sources say a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, with or without Israel. The Bush administration is even considering using small tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian targets."


I know you said otherwise eddy, but i sincerely believe that bush, and cheney, and many of these other gangsters literally are insane.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/06/10160/

 

[fela fan]

Here is a congressman talking about his colleagues' taste for using nuclear weapons on iran.

I realise that since in the same article the name 'alex jones' is mentioned that some urban posters will immediately reject anything that is said in this link.

However for others, it just adds to the unease that many have over near future actions by this mad group that have hijacked the US over the last decade.


http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/040708RonPaul2.htm

 

[kyser_soze]

Thanks for giving us all a laugh fela, great tinfoil thread

 

[fela fan]

Thanks for giving us all a laugh fela, great tinfoil thread

Heh heh, trust you've read it all.

At least then you'd know my position on it.

 

[fela fan]

Thanks for giving us all a laugh fela, great tinfoil thread

And in any case, who's the 'us', and how do you feel able to talk so definitively for them mate?

Fridgemagnet for sure had a laugh, but not sure many others have done so on this thread, so who are you talking for exactly?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, Magneze and Xes to name but 2...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

no western country can possibly use nukes in anger. it would bring instant rejection from all the others. only a genuine madman would do such a thing. GWB is not a madman. he's a cunt, but even he knows that aggressive nukes are the stupidest possible thing. this is paranoid doom-worship at it best, I'm afraid.

no to mention almost certainly they themselves would instantly be nuked ... you just oculdn't take the risk that they'd use them against anyone else...

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

no to mention almost certainly they themselves would instantly be nuked ... you just oculdn't take the risk that they'd use them against anyone else...

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I don't understand why nukes are separated from other ways of killing people. You're still as dead with conventional weapons. The firebombing of Tokyo is an example:

Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 279 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.[1][2] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. These casualty and damage figures could be low: Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus

In any case, I can't see anyone using nukes in the near term. The consequences would just not be worth it.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Well, Magneze and Xes to name but 2...

I admit that I supressed a giggle here and there.

 

[Giles]

I have found the whole idea that the US is about to launch a nuclear strike on Iran totally over-the-top.

Tin foil hats ahoy.

Giles..

 

[kyser_soze]

Since fela is incapable of providing links...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10184/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/06/10160/ (this is the article about nuking Iran:

Senior Israeli officials are openly threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear installations before President George W. Bush’s term expires. Early, this month Israel staged a large, U.S.-approved exercise using F-15s and F-16s to rehearse an attack over 900 miles - precisely the distance to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The highly regarded American journalist Seymour Hersh just confirmed that the U.S. Congress authorized a $400-million plan to overthrow Iran’s government and incite ethnic unrest. This column reported a year ago that U.S. and British special forces were operating in Iran, preparing for a massive air campaign. Israel’s destruction of an alleged Syrian reactor last fall was a warning to Iran.

This week a Pentagon official claimed an Israeli attack on Iran was coming before year end.

Other Pentagon and CIA sources say a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, with or without Israel. The Bush administration is even considering using small tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian targets.

Senior American officers Admiral William Fallon and Air Force Chief Michael Mosley recently were fired for opposing war against Iran. According to Israel’s media, President Bush even told Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he could not trust America’s intelligence community and preferred to rely on Israeli intelligence.

One line in an unattributed quote and it says nothing. More to the point from a journalistic POV it's terrible - unattributed quotes and concepts, no secondary sourcing or backup.

Fela, if you're going to read stuff like this, at least apply some critical thinking to how it's presented. Also, recommend your friend takes a look at www.thebulletin.org and www.fas.org

 

[elbows]

I have found the whole idea that the US is about to launch a nuclear strike on Iran totally over-the-top.

Tin foil hats ahoy.

Giles..

Its completely over the top if people think it means dropping huge nukes on Iran. I dont see that happening.

Its not totally impossible if it means using the mini-nuke bunker busters, or far more likely, a non-nuclear limited strike on a few key Iranian nuclear sites.

Bush has been almost lame since he was elected for a second term. I do not doubt that some in his regime would like to do one final piece of extreme foreign policy before leaving, but there are a variety of factors that weigh against this.

I would not bet either way. If Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites tomorrow I would not be shocked, but its also entirely plausible that those are just empty threats. They certainly were just threats in the past, but I dont want to be too complacent, although people in the US military speaking out against attacking Iran is probably a sign of some division at the top, but it could also just be more stuff designed to make the threat seem credible.

Also remember it suits the US agenda for many to fear that they have some crazy people in the seats of power. They really dont mind people calling Dick Cheney Darth Vader, that reputation is useful to them.

 

[newharper]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I don't understand why nukes are separated from other ways of killing people. You're still as dead with conventional weapons. The firebombing of Tokyo is an example:

You are of course correct, in the way that as a veggie I can not understand why eating horse or dog is in some way worse. Radiation sickness must be taken into account. Probably not conclusive, western hypocrisy is here supreme.

 

[fela fan]

Since fela is incapable of providing links...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10184/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/06/10160/ (this is the article about nuking Iran:



One line in an unattributed quote and it says nothing. More to the point from a journalistic POV it's terrible - unattributed quotes and concepts, no secondary sourcing or backup.

Fela, if you're going to read stuff like this, at least apply some critical thinking to how it's presented. Also, recommend your friend takes a look at www.thebulletin.org and www.fas.org

Do i laugh or get frustrated when you engage with me on these forums kyser? I dunno really, it's normally a combination of the two.

You tell me to apply critical thinking. First that's why i've started this thread to help me do exactly that. Second, your advice comes in the same post that you tell me i am incapable of providing links, yet i provided the very same link and quote as you just did (about the bottom of the last page). So, try doing some critical reading yourself before handing out your usual advice.

As for reading 'stuff like this', i have a lot of time for commondreams. I've yet to find a better source for political news and commentary.

As for your rather more august severe objective scientific sites, thanks, but no thanks. I find that politics is the driving force of human action and interaction, not science. Science and scientists will have no influence on the behaviour of bush and his mob.

Kyser, you ought to slow down in your replies to me, you often undo yourself mate in your haste to deal with this irritating voice you come across.

 

[fela fan]

I have found the whole idea that the US is about to launch a nuclear strike on Iran totally over-the-top.

Tin foil hats ahoy.

Giles..

That's fair enough, but do you really have to succumb to using this stupid lexicon of conspiracy to do so?

Incidentally, your very subjective view that the idea is 'totally over-the-top' doesn't quite stand up to the detailed postings by eddy. Well, not alone, perhaps you could explain your viewpoint. After all, one objective i wanted out of starting this thread was to happily find out there should be no worry about the US using nuclear weapons on iran first, attacking them conventionally second. Coz either form of attack leaves us with the bleak landscape i was mentioning.

 

[fela fan]

In any case, I can't see anyone using nukes in the near term. The consequences would just not be worth it.

Yeah but YW, forgive me for this, but i feel it is a mistake for any reasonable person to follow this line of logic. Of course you wouldn't use them, and the consequences wouldn't be worth it, but you are not a president, you are not a member of a cabal that wants power and wealth and empire.

Was the death and destruction that has been wrought in iraq worth the consequences?

Do bush cheney rumsfeld perle and the rest of them allow reason and sanity to prevail in their thinking?

Was such thinking behind the bombs they used in japan?

 

[fela fan]

Well, Magneze and Xes to name but 2...

So between you and me, we've found three. YW had the odd giggle or two too, although she found it worth it to suppress them for some reason...

Not really a lot in the whole thread is it? You're just engaging in your usual sport of disagreeing automatically with what i say (except in rare moments of impartiality), even if it means not reading things properly, or, in contrast to the highly objective scientific sites you advised me to read, coming out with massive subjective exaggerations...

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So between you and me, we've found three. YW had the odd giggle or two too, although she found it worth it to suppress them for some reason...

I felt bad because I know how ernest you are about this. Laughing makes me feel mean and rude.