#1
I read this yesterday, and wasn't sure what to make of it - whole lotta smoke and fog blowing around this issue right now.
But I am pretty sure that, even with Iran's recent bile-spewing and saber-rattling, the chances for Congressional authorization and public support for this are about nil.
#6
Too bad about the msm having so throroughly exercised their thought-control agendas on the American public--really, because this editorial is right on target regarding our need to invade Iran pronto.
In retrospect, I should've realized the connection regarding Bin Laden's "truce" offer. "Diamonds sharpen diamonds . . . " Duh, geez, I wunner wut thatz about . . . ("bright, shiny, white things")
Isn't Bin Laden now safely ensconced in Iran at present? And isn't he now a small player compared with the Iranian mullahs? Isn't he now their puppet?
And wouldn't it be a great thing to equate casualties, which would alienate a number of middle-of-the-roader Moslems, with a failure to accept Bin Laden's magnificent offer? I'm mean, it only serves us right. He tried to warn us. He tried to show us the way with his one-sided offer of truce.
And isn't energy-crunched China in play through the auspices of North Korea and Iran?
#12
Regardless of the article's other conjectures, this one stands on its own legs:
Few have any idea of the degree to which international trade and prosperity relies on free movement of goods between countries. Container cargo is an ideal means of covertly transporting terrorist nuclear weapons. Once the first terrorist nuke is used, international trade will be enormously curtailed for at least several months for security reasons, and the entire world will suffer a simultaneous recession.
It wonât stop there, though. These same security precautions, once implemented, will significantly impede future economic growth â a ballpark estimate of reducing worldwide growth by 20-30% is reasonable. Consider the worldwide and domestic effects over a twenty-year period of a one-quarter across the board reduction in economic growth.
The potential economic damage to America, let alone the globe, is simply prohibitive. The only alternative to pre-emptive airstrikes or an actual invasion is a decap strike against Iran's leadership. This is something that needs to happen right away.
#13
Well! Reading THAT was cheery! I think I'll go slit my jugulars.....
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/20/2006 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The USA and the world either accepts a nuclearized Radical Iran, or it doesn't -why, because both the Iranians and the anti-US agendists want it that way and won't give America nor the world any choice. Where America's enemies are concerned, the WOT and 9-11 for the most part is about tricking and forcing America under anti-American OWG and anti-American American Socialism-Communism - the US DemoLeft's prob is NOT alleged Fascist Amerika waging war around the world vv 9-11, ITS COMMUNIST AMERICA NOT BEING THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE WOT. When it comes to criticizing Dubya, "FASCIST" = NAZI-HITLERIST; when it comes to achieving the Left's and SOcialism's GLOBAL ambitions, the International- and now Global Proletariat/
Revolution - "FASCIST" = DE-REGULATED COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM, LIMITED SOCIALISM, LIMITED CAPITALISM, LIMITED LAISSEZ FAIRE = LIMITED TOTALITARIANISM,.....................etc Lefty concepts, PC = PDeniable, Hyper-Correct = HyperDeniable, Waffling Policratic Mysteries-Riddles wrapped around Waffling Policratic Enigmas. The MadMullahs and MadMoud must know that neither Russia nor China will ever allow Iran to have any nuke ability capable of destroying Moscow andor Beijing, let alone to challenge their hegemonic ambitions. FOR NOW, the enemy to both Iran and Russia-China is America. WHATEVER SCHEME THE HUMAN MIND CAN COME UP WITH, REST ASSURED THE LEFTIES, COMMIES, GOVERNMENTISTS, and GLOBALISTS, etc, in America andor outside it, will try to manipulate and control. As "The Colonel", LIBYA's M. KHADDAFY, himself argued, in paraphrase - "LIBERALISM is only POPULAR CAPITALISM, where the Government attempts to control some vestiges of Capitalism".
9-11 and the WOT > Lefties, etal. are going for the whole enchilada, not only NATIONALLY BUT GLOBALLY. And for all this trouble, ala Chinese Defense Minster Hitian - AMERICA (1/2 +/-)IS ALREADY DUBBED AS FUTURE CHICOM TERRITORY, with 200M of America's 300M still needing to be "eliminated" for the good of China and the world. 200M + 5-1/2Bilyuhn > even under OWG, and Global Socialism, America and Americans, no doubt including many iff not all the US DemoLeft, WILL STILL END UP BEING PC ELIMINATED, BEING PC "PURGED". RADICAL IRAN IS BUT ONE BATTLEFIELD TO THAT GLORIOUS GLOBAL UTOPIAN, GLOBAL SOCIALIST END [OF THE WORLD].
The United States is engaged in the most radical and dangerous gambit in the Middle East since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Established powers are not often inclined to tamper with the status quo abroad, and so do not support the weaker and disenfranchised. They usually prefer to prop up whoever ensures order and stability. But after September 11, the old safe way was seen as dangerous, and the new dangerous way as ultimately more safe.
America not merely reversed its own past practice of supporting autocrats who pumped oil and kept Communists out, at least in the Middle East; but in staying on after the removal of Saddam Husseinâso unlike post-Soviet Afghanistan, Lebanon of 1983, or Mogadishu in 1993âit spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to give birth to democracy.
On the principle of one-person one-vote, the United States has somehow enfranchised the hated Shia and Kurds, without demonizing the Sunnis. And the Sunnis will probably end up with political representation commensurate with their numbers, despite a horrific past association with Saddam Hussein and the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
And the response?
Shiites claim that we are caving in to the terrorist supporters of al Qaeda and the former Hussein regime. Sunnis counter that we are only empowering the surrogates of Iranian crazies. The Iranians show their thanks for our support for their spiritual brethren in Iraq by humiliating European diplomats with promises to wipe out Israel.
In the larger Middle East, the democratic splash in the Iraqi pond is slowly rippling out, as voting proceeds in Egypt and the Gulf, Syria leaves Lebanon, and Moammar Gadhafi and Pakistanâs Dr. Khan cease their nuclear machinations. Hundreds of thousands of protesters hit the streets in Lebanon and Jordanânot to slur the United States, as predicted, for removing Saddam Hussein, but to damn Bashar Assad and al-Zarqawi as terrorist killers. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader, now calls for Western pressure to root out the Syrian Baathists.
Youâd never know all this from the global media or state-run news services in Europe and the Middle East.
We have sent tens of millions of dollars in earthquake relief to Pakistan, even though for over four years it has given de facto sanctuary to the killers responsible for murdering three thousand Americans. In response, the Pakistani Street expects Americans to provide debt relief, send them aid, excuse their support for our enemiesâand then goes wild should we ever cross the border to retaliate against al Qaeda terrorists in their midst who are plotting to trump 9/11.
At home, much about Iraq has been turned around in Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass fashion. Indeed the debate over Iraq has too often descended into Jabberwocky-like gibberish. We were once slandered as hegemonic; but when we didnât steal anything in Iraq, and instead spent billions in aid, suddenly we were called naive by the now realist Left.
The war was caricatured as all about grabbing oil. Then when the price skyrocketed, we were dubbed foolish for tampering with the fragile petroleum landscape, or with not charging Iraqi price-gouging exporters for our time and services.
Americans tried to remain idealistic on the principle that Iraqis, if freed and helped, could craft a workable democracy, and that such consensual governments would make the volatile Middle East safer, since elected and legitimate governments rarely attack their own kind. In response, the supposedly idealistic Left charged that we were bellicose and imperialistic â as if being on the side of the purple-fingered Iraqi voter was not preferable to being on the side of the terrorist and insurrectionist, who masked his fascism with national rhetoric.
The realist Right was aghast that profits and the balance of power were lost in the equation. The isolationists felt we were either doing Israelâs bidding, wasting lives and money on hopeless tribesmen, or fattening the government to administer a new empire. And all these alternative views were predicated on the 24-hour pulse of the battlefield, to be instantly modified, retracted, or amplified when events suggested dramatic improvement or disheartening setback.
The exasperated public is told that we had too few troops in postwar Iraq, but have too many now. We wanted to be as inconspicuous as possible, so as not injure Arab sensitivities or create perpetual dependency, but we ended up needing an unfortunately high profile just to put down insurrectionists.
Jay Garner was too much the military man; Paul Bremmer too little.
Prewar forecasts warned a worried public that we might lose 3,000-5,000 soldiers just in removing Saddam. Three years later, we have removed him and sponsored a democracy to boot, and at far less than those feared numbers. But we react as if we had faced unexpected numbers of casualties.
Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddamâs Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.
Apparently, we are asked to believe that the al Qaedists whom Iraqis and Americans kill each day in Iraq largely joined up because we removed Saddam Hussein.
After September 11, many of our experts assured us that it was ânot a question of if, but whenâ we were to be hit againâwith the qualifier that the next strike would be far worse, entailing a dirty bomb, or biological or chemical agents.
Yet when we are still free from an assault 52 months later, censors assure that our safety has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, nothing to do with wiretaps, nothing to do with killing thousands of terrorists abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nothing to do with creating democratic Afghan and Iraqi security forces who daily hunt down jihdadists far from Americaâs shores. And yet, strangely, there is no serious legislation to revoke the Patriot Act, to outlaw listening to calls from potential terrorists, or to cut off funds for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Summarize what the media, the Europeans, the Middle East, and the opposition at home say about Iraq, and the usual narrative is that an initial mistake was made far worse by ideologues, leading to a hopeless situation that only makes the U.S. appear foolish and impotent, while ruining the military, creating a police state at home, and emptying the treasury.
Yet these same critics surely donât want Saddam Hussein back. They concede that after three successful elections, Iraq just might be the first truly democratic society in the history of the Middle East. And they privately acknowledge that the reputations of Osama bin Laden and Al Zarqawi are on the wane. How was that possible when almost everyone fouled up?
So how do we make sense of what seems so nonsensical? Rather easilyâjust keep in mind four general talking points about Americaâs recent role in the world and most things gradually becomes clearer.
Point One (for Americans): My own flawless three-week removal of Saddam Hussein was ruined by your error-prone postwar peace.
Point Two (for Middle Easterners): We are for democracyâunless you Americans help us obtain it.
Point Three (for Europeans): We are privately for and publicly against what you do.
Point Four (for everyone else): When angry at either the United States (or yourself,) just blame the Jews in America, and Israel abroad.
Sometimes in these crazy times, that is all you need to know.
#2
Hanson is a national treasure. Odd to remember that he was a Democrat. Where have the sane Democrats (Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman, etc) gone?
Not that you photo makes you appear to be 50+, but only that wisdom such as yours does not come overnight!
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/20/2006 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Lots of us, even here at Rantburg, used to be Democrats. Liberals even. Then we were mugged by reality. In the olden days, O Best Beloved, the Democrats were the party of idealism realized. Then they ossified, and then they nastified. And now the Republicans under George W. Bush are the ones acting out our idealism to make the world better for us all.
/jumps down from stump to signal end of heartfelt speechifying ;-)
#5
Thank you, TW! Welcome to the Club! Some of us have been in a long time.
My sister, who I used to consider a liberal wacko, recently confided that, Bobby, the older I get, the more conservative I get."
She's still a little strange.....
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/20/2006 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Unfortunately for us Americans Democracy, Freedom, Libertarianism, and Pluralism includes those whom have the right to be nutjobs, deluded, perfectionist, selfish and malicious, etc. in all forms. FDR once said that while all Americans have the right to privately disagree with one another and to privately disagree with the actions and policies of their Congress, Politicians, and Government in general, no American has the right to singularly overthrow their Constitutional form of Government nor to force their contrarian will upon the people of the USA. The Commie Clintons and 9-11 is about making the unlikely, the impossible, the unbelievable, the treasonous onerous and murderous, happen, and to do it with the help of Americans themselves. Just in case America doesn't, its anti-US nuke war circa 2015 -2020 - the Russkis claim 2018 or after, whilst iff memmory serves the Chicoms argue 2015-2017. OWG and GLOBAL SOCIALISM > AMWERICAN HOLOCAUST AND GLOBAL HOLOCAUST IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY, D*** YOU, SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL DEATH CAMP, SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL OWG UN PEACEKEEPING GARRISON BROTHEL, SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL COMMIE = UNITARIAN POL ESTABLISHMENT, SUPPORT TREES AND WHALES BY SUPP YOUR LOCAL SELF- AND FAMILY SUICIDE, GOVT- PROVIDED, QUICK-AND-EASY LASER STATIONS ala STAR TREK, D*** YOU. THIS IS AMERIKA, D*** IT, THE USSA, AND UNITED SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (USR) vv OIL STORM, NOT AMERICA.
We pay thrice for our oil dependency, once on exorbitant prices for fuels, again in military expenditures to keep the oil flowing worldwide and in insecurity and dead from those who use those windfall profits to kill and enslave us. But the US has the world's largest known carbon reserves, much of it in 300 billion tons of coal (1 ton = 5 barrels oil). We have the resources and technology to ensure our security and cut our enemies off at the knees. Americans just need the clear vision and will to utilize what we (and Canadians too) already have in abundance. That means nuclear power for electricity and for industrial steam to power coal, shale, tar sands conversion to liquid and gaseous fuels, moving away from the internal combustion engine to electric and plug in hybrids that can meet most consumers travel needs on electricity alone. Even solar and wind because every little bit helps.
Each dayâs headlines underscore a central reality of our time: The United States has no choice but to make real progress on energy security â specifically by reducing the exclusive reliance of Americaâs transportation sector on gasoline and diesel fuels, most of which are derived from oil imported from overseas. Consider a sampler of recent developments in nations from which we obtain such oil:
Saudi Arabia: Sundayâs Los Angeles Times gave prominent treatment to expressions of growing frustration by U.S. officials about the lack of Saudi cooperation in countering terrorism. The bottom line is that, while the Saudis may be trying to crack down on terrorist operations within the Kingdom, they continue to support the Islamofascists, the terror they wield as a weapon elsewhere around the world and the large and growing global infrastructure that enables them to be so dangerous. We are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront. This is an intolerable â and unsustainable â situation.
Russia: Vladimir Putinâs increasingly authoritarian regime has demonstrated anew the Kremlinâs traditional willingness to use energy exports as an instrument of economic and political warfare. While the immediate target of the most recent such warfare was Ukraine, every other nation â including the United States â that contemplates reliance on Russian natural gas and oil supplies is on notice: Russia cannot be viewed as reliable source.
Mexico: The Washington Times reported earlier this week that armed units, at least some of whom are believed to be members of the Mexican army, have made over 200 incursions inside the United States over the past nine years. Some have included firefights with U.S. border-patrol officers. With the likely election of a radical anti-American leftist, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as the next president of Mexico, relations between the two nations are sure to become even more strained â with potentially significant repercussions for Mexican oil imports to this country.
Nigeria: Islamists are increasingly destabilizing Africaâs most productive oil-exporting nation, with attacks on the industryâs infrastructure and personnel a tool in their campaign to establish control over the main source of the countryâs wealth and to impose sharia in Muslim areas â and beyond. Such attacks have recently taken off line one-tenth of the countryâs output. The threat to foreign investment in the country and the reliability of its supply of oil is only likely to increase.
Venezuela: The ever-more-despotic and -ambitious president, Hugo Chavez, is seeking to consolidate his rule at home and facilitate his destabilizing and aggressive designs elsewhere in the hemisphere. Among other techniques being used for these purposes is Chavezâs ludicrous declaration that the United States is preparing to invade his country. He has threatened in the past to interrupt oil supplies to the U.S. It is entirely possible that, at some point, he may decide to do so.
Iran: While the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, the availability of Iranian crude in the international market â or, more precisely, the lack thereof â can have a significant impact on prices American consumers pay for gasoline and other petroleum-based products. The escalating crisis precipitated by an Iranian regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the destruction of Israel and âa world without Americaâ could well translate into possibly lengthy disruptions in the availability of Iranian (and perhaps other Persian Gulf-originated) oil exports.
Sudan: As with Iranian oil, U.S. sanctions on the terrorist-sponsoring, slave-trading, weapons-of-mass-destruction-proliferating and genocidal regime in Khartoum means that Sudanese oil supplies are not directly available to the American market. The ongoing, horrific state-sponsored assaults on the people of Darfur, however, raises the possibility that the so-called âinternational communityâ may finally be shamed into taking action to punish the Islamosfascist government of Sudan, with repercussions for its oil exports and global markets.
Virtually alone among major oil-exporting nations, Canadaâs capacity and willingness to provide its energy resources to America remains steady and strong. There, as elsewhere, however, the ability of Communist China to recycle its immense trade surpluses by buying up oil, coal, natural gas, and other energy assets raises questions about the future availability of Canadian petroleum exports, to say nothing of their ability to offset shortfalls that might be associated with one or the other of the foregoing problems.
There is simply no way Americaâs leaders can responsibly further defer concrete actions needed to reduce the amount of oil we use in that part of our society and economy where most of it is consumed: the transportation sector. In a new book, War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World, I'm among those who describe these actions â which comprise the âSet America Freeâ Blueprint and which will, if implemented, provide the United States with fuel choice. The time has come to make far more widely available supplies of alternative fuels (ethanol, methanol and electricity); to ensure that every car sold in America is flexible-fuel compatible and that as many as possible are plug-in hybrids; and to ensure that the necessary, relatively modest adjustments are made to our transportation infrastructure.
This agenda should be a top priority in President Bushâs upcoming State of the Union address and at the top of the legislative program for the new session of Congress.
Posted by: ed ||
01/20/2006 08:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great articles this morning, rantburg.
âWe are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our
petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront.â
Says so much.
âPresident Ronald Reagan engaged in a consummate act of political warfare at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987. He called on the then-leader of the Kremlin, Michael Gorbachev, to tear down the wall that had long divided the Free World's city of West Berlin from the surrounding, Soviet-controlled East Germany. The US State Department tried repeatedly to remove that line from the president's speech.â
I thought this from www.warfooting.com, juxtiposed against another article you are running on State taking over USAID, made for interesting consideration this morning. The effect that former President Reaganâs statement had on eastern European people was deeply meaningful and inspiring. Hope State yields to use of this kind of âpolitical warfareâ ( I think itâs more an artistic upper hook--imagery and words in magnificent union. Course, it will require some artfulness...)
#2
Perhaps what follows may sound like heresy and unpatriotic? What is said is said out of a sense of frustration. Many other ordinary Americans have realized the need to address the issues outlined in the article for a long time. Too bad we donât have politicians that are worthy of Americans. Instead we have sniping, bickering, wasted time and wasted money in Washington. The wasted money comes off the backs of working Americans. Those ruling in Washington have jobs that pay well and benefits that are the envy of other Americans. Hell, most politicians that have been in Congress for any time retire millionaires.
1. A coherent energy policy in the best interest of the US has been non-existent for during my adult life (nearly 70 years). Our lack of energy policy has kept us tied to the mid-east for too long. As long as we are tied to the oil countries of the mid-east we will be at their whim. There is a need to move towards US energy self-sufficiency. Otherwise we will continue to experience high energy prices and the threat of constant war in the mid-east. I say, letâs move as rapidly as possible towards self-sufficiency. Let the mid-east go begging for markets in which to sell their oil. Saudi Arabia will come around quickly and quit funding our opposition. Iran will start having difficulty funding a nuclear program that they donât need. They are sitting on energy reserves that would satisfy their energy needs for a long, long time. Their statements about the need for the development of a domestic nuclear energy program are bogus. We have nearly lost our ability to do anything about the growing nuclear threat from Iran.
2. As the article said, energy is becoming a weapon of a global war. Both China and Russia are using it to jockey for power in the world.
3. Our border policies are like are energy policies; feckless. We basically talk a good fight and little else. As the result, the American people suffer from incursions by illegals. The illegals most likely include terrorists. Moreover, the flow of drugs into American is a growing problem. These drugs result in a decay in our culture.
4. There is little Congressional leadership that is evident. The Democrats would be laughable if they were funny. They come across as silly. They embrace political correctness as the flag of their party. The Republicans arenât much better. They have lost the clear direction they had when they took over Congress in 1994. They had a plan and a program to which Americans responded. The direction and compass seems to be missing today.
#5
That faint rumbling I hear, is it a paradigm shift?
It's all doable - not without hardship and a complete change in attitude and priorities - but doable.
Average America needs to understand the Shell dollar goes directly from their hands to the Osamas of the east and points else. Needs to "get" that imported oil purchased here funds the terror side of this war on terror.
I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been a peep that I've heard about "boycott" or voluntarily and very abruptly reducing and/or eliminating use of oil products.
#7
If we achieved "energy independence" it would only act as a subsidy to every one else in the world who would continue to buy their oil from the low cost provider, the Mohammedan Middle East. The wacko Mos would continue to get beaucoup bucks for oil and would still hate us, until we convert. Energy security would achieve nothing except to accustom us to higher prices and freedom to conduct war without an interruption of some of our energy supply. How much would this be worth if we weren't willing to go to war until being attacked?
#9
The US already subsidizes the world's energy consumption though our extensive military, diplomatic and foreign aid expenditures to keep the the oil flowing. Even before 2001, it was adding up to $50 billion per year (a 50% premium 12 millin barrels/day oil imports or 200% premium if only mideast imports are considered). Now that figure has at least tripled and oil prices have tripled.
My first preference is to apply sharia on the muslims, take their land and assets, and treat them as they treat infidels and Jews. But since the American public is not there yet, I would settle for energy self sufficiency with nuclear power at 4 cents/kilowatt, $40 barrel synfuels and zero contact with muslims. Let the former free riders shoulder the burden or fight it out to keep their energy lines open.
Posted by: ed ||
01/20/2006 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
