← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 18742 | Posts: 47 | Started: 2005-06-21
2005-06-21 05:30 | User Profile
The US war with Iran has already begun by Scott Ritter Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT
Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.
On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."
We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.
These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.
President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase. This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.
It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.
But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.
As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.
As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera. [url]http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm[/url]
2005-06-23 19:42 | User Profile
The first Axis of Evil Iran comment was idiotic, back three or four years ago. Check out this latest gaffe from the Public Affairs podium.
[QUOTE] Washington Post June 17, 2005 Pg. 18 [size=5]Bush Denounces Iran's Election [/size] [size=4]President Vows to Stand by Citizenry in Struggle for Freedom [/size]By Robin Wright and Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post Staff Writers On the eve of Iran's presidential election, President Bush yesterday denounced Tehran's theocracy for manipulating the vote by eliminating candidates and ignoring the "basic requirements" of democracy. Whatever the election's outcome, power will continue to be held by "an unelected few" who are out of step with political changes sweeping the rest of the region, Bush said in a statement released by the White House.
The tough White House comment comes at a pivotal juncture in U.S.-Iranian relations and in Iran's political evolution. Seven candidates are vying today to replace President Mohammad Khatami, the reformist whose two-term tenure is ending without significantly changing the world's only modern theocracy. The next government will be in charge of negotiating with leaders of other nations on Iran's nuclear capability, a process -- currently deadlocked -- designed to ensure that Tehran cannot produce a nuclear weapon from its peaceful energy program.
==Snip more stuff in the same vein.==
Rice set out four conditions for changing a quarter-century of tensions dating to the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, when 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Washington wants Tehran to open up politically; to pledge not to seek a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian energy program; to become "transparent and good neighbors" of Iraq and Afghanistan; and to stop supporting extremist groups, which she called a critical step in achieving Middle East peace. "If the Iranians are prepared to start on that course, then . . . we'd be in a different set of circumstances than we are now," Rice said.
But the White House faces pressure from its own supporters for tougher action. The administration should provide aid for Iranian opposition groups and spotlight jailed dissidents, journalists and student leaders, said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "Now is the moment when [Bush] needs to actually give his word meaning," she said. "It has taken too long." Given the contentiousness of American elections lately, and the bald FACT that not all votes are counted (though extras may be recounted, see Oregon or Washington, I forget) President Bush has a lot of nerve to bust the balls of the Iranians and their political processes.
Glass houses and all that. I agree with Mr Ritter in part, the part about the commencement of the Information War. [QUOTE=Sertorius]The US war with Iran has already begun by Scott Ritter Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT
On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."
We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.
These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.
**President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. **
A pity they could not have kocked his ass off. Saving of about 200 billion and 1700+ lives would have been nice. :whstl:
[QUOTE] The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier. The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. [/QUOTE]BS. A violtation of airspace is NOT by itself an act of war. Mr Ritter needs to read ICAO before he opens his mouth. It can, however, be considered an act of war [u]depending on the circumstances.[/u] The normal course of redress is via diplomatic channels, formal protest, etc. In the case of Iraq, already under a pair of no fly zone that were set up by the UN Security Council sanctions, Mr Ritter's mouth is overtemping his facts. Now, flights that went North of the No Fly Zone's northern limit . . .that would be a violation of Iraqi airspace. :glare:
[QUOTE]
But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase. This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.
It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.
[/QUOTE]So, is Mr Ritter Cassandra or Pollyanna? Hmmmmm. Pollyanna.
[QUOTE]
But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.
[/QUOTE]We don't have the means to do that. What is Ritter smoking?
[QUOTE]
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
[/QUOTE]
Aye, the propaganda machine continues apace.
[QUOTE]By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]Mr Ritter is attempting to build a car without a chassis. Nice wire rim wheels, though, and pretty leather seats. :whstl:
[QUOTE]
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.
[/QUOTE]Who is lulled? What planet is Mr Ritter living on? Most of the world is rather irritated at Mr Bush, and quite a bit of America as well. Straw Man!
[QUOTE]
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
[/QUOTE]Satellites, Scott, fly over Iran every day. What's yer ****in point?
[QUOTE]
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
[/QUOTE]Oh, once again, he goes back to falsehood. If Predators or other such aircraft are flying into Iranian airspace, I'd like to see his proof of that.
Last spring, a US tanker with a fighter on its wing/drogue got called on International Distress by Iranian missile defense forces. Words to the effect of "Hey asshole, you are in our airspace!" The pilots turned around and went the other way. Sec Def Rumsfeld, if I remember correctly, issued a formal apology for the error. His CENTAF folks confirmed the crew screwed the pooch and, get this, got lost dodging thunderstorms. (I imagine a few asses got royally chewed for that one, possibly a few groundings or Article 15's.) Apparently, the pilots were avoiding a thunderstorm and chose an ill considered heading. But for Mr Ritter, it was an act of war.
What an idiot. The Iranians not only did not shoot, they went through the usual "The American arsehole Satanists violated our airspace" for which the crow was munched by America.
[QUOTE]President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.[/QUOTE]I'd bet this is true. Won't know for a few years, will we?
[QUOTE]
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
[/QUOTE]
Can he prove this?
[QUOTE]It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.[/QUOTE]Well, the US supported some folks known as Taliban against the Soviets. Politics and War make strange bedfellows.
[QUOTE]
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe the logical fallacy . . . whatever. Bitter indeed, Mr Ritter has a point.
[QUOTE]
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that [u]will foretell[/u] a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, I think I just broke a rib laughing. If he knew anything about logistics at the corps and army level, he'd realize how stupid he sounds.
[QUOTE]
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
[/QUOTE]
Caspian Oil Fields.
[QUOTE]
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
[/QUOTE]
Old, old news to some of us.
[QUOTE] . . .And this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.[/QUOTE]Can he prove this, or is he guessing?
[QUOTE]
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
[/QUOTE]
Heheheh, Mr Ritter is dealing with a stovepipe theory, which includes the Iraq war having been sewn up before such an Iran operation is committed to. Sorry, that will go on for a while, and he of course neglects to mention that.
GBW will be gone in 2008. The question is, will the core of the neocons leave with him, or will they stick around as "advisers?" Critical question, needs answering.
[QUOTE]
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
[/QUOTE]To a certain extent that is true, but that is no small matter to execute. But what does capturing Teheran do for you? See Napoleon in Moscow. OK, now I have it . . . and no one seems very impressed with my awesomeness . . . see also . . . Baghdad.
[QUOTE]
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran. US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
[/QUOTE]See above.
[QUOTE]
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan. Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but where are the seven divisions it will take to pull off? Oh, and the Main Supply Routes . . . over the effing mountains in Northwest Iran . . .never mind. Mr Ritter is playing Big hand, little map.
[QUOTE]
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past,
"With everyone's heads . . . " BS. His mouth overtemps his brain again. Straw Man.
[QUOTE]
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see his proof.
[QUOTE]
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
[/QUOTE]Yes, and Saddam accused him of being a puppet of the CIA.
Mr Ritter raises some good points and linkages that don't get a lot of air time, good for him, but his hyperbole damages his message.
Too bad. He has some good things to say due to what he knows about Persian Gulf politics.
2005-06-24 00:40 | User Profile
I wonder when the war against Venezuela will be in order to "liberate" them from their oil.
By the way, did you know that there is oil in the state of Israel? only problem is that it is in Palestinian land.
How stupid and ignorant does the government thinks we are?
2005-06-24 07:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]GBW will be gone in 2008.[/QUOTE]
Don't count on it.
2005-06-24 11:15 | User Profile
I sure hope he's right that we're going to war with Iran.
It might just be the death knell of the Empire.
Worse is better.
2005-06-24 12:57 | User Profile
Damn, Angel Eyes, you really sliced and diced Scott Ritter's commentary like a true Freeper. Yahooooooooo!!!
I guess you know better than he does.
If the US attacks Iran, I doubt the rest of the world is going to sit around and not do anything. WWIII will be right at our doorstep. And even if Ritter indulges in hyperbole in his commentary, no one can deny America's overt belligerence towards Iran. Is all that talk for nothing?
2005-06-25 00:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Damn, Angel Eyes, you really sliced and diced Scott Ritter's commentary like a true Freeper. Yahooooooooo!!!
I guess you know better than he does.
If the US attacks Iran, I doubt the rest of the world is going to sit around and not do anything. WWIII will be right at our doorstep. And even if Ritter indulges in hyperbole in his commentary, no one can deny America's overt belligerence towards Iran. Is all that talk for nothing?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I agree with Mr Ritter in part, the part about the commencement of the Information War. [/QUOTE]On some things, like ICAO, yes I do. On others, I wonder at his proof. If his book, the one that comes out in October has proof, I will be happy to change my assessment.
Maybe what I did was agree with what made sense to me, and expose where he was full of shit. Of course, I am limited by what I know, so some of his assertions may be stronger than I thought.
It is better he wrote the article, for all its shortcomings, than not, as hopefully it will at least get people thinking. In that, he has served the public well via the First Ammendment.
Betting money says: Pollyana.
President Bush was able to leverage the emotion of 9-11 into Afghanistan, easy, and Iraq, not as easy but successfully done.
I think that card has been spent, (yes, I have been wrong before) and given the embarassment of the "they have WMD" == "awe shit, where are they all?" I don't think that trigger will be usable vis a vis Iran considering the mess Iraq is in.
The sales job, as I see it, is orders of magnitude harder. And Iran has nearly 80 million people in it, not Iraq's 28 million or so. (Numbers not crystal clear.)
I also know that the Pentagon has contingencies for hundred of operations that never get executed.
2005-06-25 00:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I sure hope he's right that we're going to war with Iran.
It might just be the death knell of the Empire.
Worse is better.[/QUOTE] Really? I hope to hell he is wrong. What I'd rather see is us finally getting over our thing with Iran and finding a way to work with them. We are slowly but surely finding a way to work with Viet Nam. We need to come to the table, at least.
Of course, no one at the NSC calls me for advice. :censored:
2005-06-25 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Don't count on it.[/QUOTE] Read what I said, again.
[QUOTE] GBW will be gone in 2008. The question is, will the core of the neocons leave with him, or will they stick around as "advisers?" Critical question, needs answering.
[/QUOTE] The second part is a far more important issue than the first, don't you think? The unelected advisors?
2005-06-26 05:13 | User Profile
this is no joke. An American attack on Iran will result in: 1) total destruction of the American fleet in the Persian Gulf. Ships will be sank overnight. Sunburn and new misslies will destroy all ships wwwl.vialls.com 2) a huge internal Jihad which has never been seen before. 3) you know what that means.. it means pounding 500 million Arabs into nuclear oblivoin. There is no other way to win. 4) At that point, the USA will have to decide whether or not to drop mega nuclear bombs. This will destroy not only the Middle East, but everywhere. \ 11) teams of unidentified consurgents have assassinated the staffs of all American Media ?
woo
2005-06-26 13:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]By the way, did you know that there is oil in the state of Israel? only problem is that it is in Palestinian land.[/QUOTE] That's very interesting - do you have more information?
2005-06-26 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]this is no joke. 1) total destruction of the American fleet in the Persian Gulf. Ships will be sank overnight. Sunburn and new misslies will destroy all ships wwwl.vialls.com
Finally found Viall's article on the Sunburn. Good reading, though wordy.
It strikes me that deployment of Sunburn would be from hard to find/target flatbed trucks, or in selected caves complexes or underground launch sites. Page from North Korea's book. The key to effective ship targeting would be getting target coordinates and direction of motion information to launch platforms. Any Surface to Surface missile has a limited "search" window on its guidance radar, so a "window" in which to find the target is necessary. The advantage of a Mach 2+ speed at sea level is that the window need not be very large, since time of flight gets the missile into the area of probability quickly. I don't see air launch as a practical option. Knocking down the "Badger or Bear" is an old Air Defense method that would work again.
How to target the US Fleet in the Persian Gulf? Commercial satellites, for starters. The Iranians are not stupid. I expect that they have leased such sattelite time as is needed to keep their "eyes" on all assets afloat in the Persian Gulf.
Presuming an Irani first strike, the nightmare scenario you depict would probaby go like this: Initially a series of Silkworm or Exocet attacks to flood radar and C2 systems, followed up by Sunburst from ground launched platforms, or Kilo class submarines. Chances are that Sunburst would hit numerous targets. With a nuclear payload the escalation to nuclear is a frightening prospect. Were American tanks already rolling into Iran (which I don't see as a likely occurrence) the nuclear card might well get played early. That's a global "awe shit," bad bad bad. I see Sunburst, with a nuclear tip, being perhaps a weapon of choice against land formations in choke points. Not sure how utile they'd be in rough terrain. Having no clue as to the strategic thinking along those lines in Teheran, I won't guess on the likelihood of Iran going nuclear.
If America started the war, it might be a tougher nut for Iran to crack. Knocking out C2 nodes and targeting networks would be pri one, so the Iranian coastal defense command and control network would probably be one of the top three targets of any American attack. Without a scope, can't find the deer to shoot. That guarantees nothing, as we saw from the not so great results of the "Great Scud Hunt" in Iraq in 1991. There'd be at least a few ships on fire, is my guess.
Cheaper to mine the straits, of course. Also consider the use of terrain masking on the Arabian side of the Gulf as a modest mitigation against acquisition. Food for thought in any case. [QUOTE] 2) a huge internal Jihad which has never been seen before. [/QUOTE]As I understand your thought, American attack on Iran induces many Iranians flock to the Theocrats' banner. Makes sense. [QUOTE] 3) you know what that means.. it means pounding 500 million Arabs into nuclear oblivoin. There is no other way to win. [/QUOTE]While not an inherently bad thing -- turning Arabs into nuclear waste -- it is self defeating to the national interest. You cant trade with a nuclear desert. I see the number as roughly 80 million Iranians. Or, did your point two mean that all across the Ring of Fire the Jihadist banner is flocked to? [QUOTE]4) At that point, the USA will have to decide whether or not to drop mega nuclear bombs. This will destroy not only the Middle East, but everywhere.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that is a crappy prospect, isn't it? Given that if they are dead you can't make profitable trade with them, I am not so sure the nuclear option is in the least bit expedient. [QUOTE] 11) teams of unidentified consurgents have assassinated the staffs of all American Media ? [/QUOTE]What does that mean? Mass assassination, or targeting of selected media organs and nodes?[/QUOTE]
2005-06-26 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Marty]That's very interesting - do you have more information?[/QUOTE]
For what it's worth, try this.
[url="http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-23.html"]http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-23.html[/url]
2005-06-26 16:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]The US war with Iran has already begun by Scott Ritter Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration. [/QUOTE]Sadly, reason and logic are of little help in forecasting or predicting the future actions of the American Empire. The real decisionmakers - the big money soft dollar contributors - are in the shadows, utterly unremarked by the media and unaccountable for their delusions and mistakes.
Therefore, the real decisionmakers are free to continue making those obvious mistakes. No institution holds them in check.
First, it is clear that an occupation of Iran with troops in an attempt to convert the population to hedonistic individualism after the model of Sumner Redstone's MTV is hopelessly delusional.
Second, annihilation of the Iranian people would cause China, India and Russia to devote massive resources to military counter measures, and to lower the threshold for pre-emptive first strike.
Thus, the only remotely viable option would seem to be continual arial bombardment - an option with China, India and Russia have an intense interest in thwarting or making as expensive as possible.
And while Iran may not be able to reach U.S. directly, it is clear that Iran can retaliate against the U.S. and its empire (if it acts quickly - as soon as attack is immanent) by shutting down Saudi oil production, thereby plunging the U.S. and world economy into deep depression.
Iran also has the capacity - if it strikes first - to inflict very heavy losses on the American military in Iraq, which as been forced by the insurgency to concentrate itself in a relatively few high density locations.
One would think that rational decisionmakers would avoid exposing the U.S. to such risks.
The problem, of course, is that the big soft dollar contributors who run this country do not have to disclose their intentions, and we know from the past 15 years of experience that whatever those subjective intentions might be, they have nothing to do with the interests of the United States as a geographical nation, nor with the interests of the core population of the United States.
One might think that it would be in the interests of the neocon polical contributors to keep the American Empire strong so that it may continue to protect Israel and promote Jewish interests World wide - the only two political objectives which seem to matter to them.
But if keeping the American Empire strong were the objective, then one would think that the big soft dollar contributors would insist on keeping the core Euro-American population strong by halting the noxious discharges from Hollywood, and by halting the immigration of populations which contribute to the centrifugal forces which, ultimately, will pull the American Empire apart from within.
I am afraid that we must accept the fact that our real political leaders are possessed of a chaotic jumble of fundamentally inconsistent policy preferences which are driven by equal parts of ethnocentrism and vanity.
Try as we might to fit these square pegs of delusion into the round holes of reason, we will fail.
2005-06-26 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Marty]That's very interesting - do you have more information?[/QUOTE]
Yes Marty, a while back I saw some old maps showing oil wells on the Gaza Strip near a town by the name of Nuseirat.....I think that's the way to spell it.
2005-06-26 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I sure hope he's right that we're going to war with Iran.
It might just be the death knell of the Empire.
Worse is better.[/QUOTE] Agreed, which is why I would be shocked if it ever happened. Iraq's Shia leadership is in regular contact with the Iranian government. It would be an instant two-front war. Absolute insanity. They cannot be that stupid, but who knows?
2005-06-26 20:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yggdrasil] First, it is clear that an occupation of Iran with troops in an attempt to convert the population to hedonistic individualism after the model of Sumner Redstone's MTV is hopelessly delusional. Check. [QUOTE] Second, annihilation of the Iranian people would cause China, India and Russia to devote massive resources to military counter measures, and to lower the threshold for pre-emptive first strike.[/QUOTE]What possible strategic end would the annihilation of Iran's people serve? None. What political end? None. That screams of a straw man option. [QUOTE]Thus, the only remotely viable option would seem to be continual arial bombardment - an option with China, India and Russia have an intense interest in thwarting or making as expensive as possible.[/QUOTE]Iran is not Serbia. The survey of the Strategic Bombing Campaign against Germany showed, when examined with a critical eye, far less effectiveness than the Army Air Corps had initially claimed. The tonnage dropped on North Viet Nam was of limited effectiveness. Bombing Iraq hardly solved the political problems associated with that nation vis a vis American policy. I find it hard to believe that all sane military advice to the political leadership will be ignored . . . though if that were true, General Shinseki would have been heeded rather than fired. :wallbash: Iran has the strategic advantage of convenient geography: it sits astride the Straits of Hormuz and can shut down the sea lanes in less than a day by laying mines. More complicated operations and deploymet of their diesel submarines is well within their capability. [QUOTE]And while Iran may not be able to reach U.S. directly, it is clear that Iran can retaliate against the U.S. and its empire (if it acts quickly - as soon as attack is immanent) by shutting down Saudi oil production, thereby plunging the U.S. and world economy into deep depression.[/QUOTE]Even though only 11-15% of American oil supplies come from the Persian Gulf? The effects on American's trading partners would be more profoundly felt, particularly Japan. [QUOTE] Iran also has the capacity - if it strikes first - to inflict very heavy losses on the American military in Iraq, which as been forced by the insurgency to concentrate itself in a relatively few high density locations. [/QUOTE]Yep.
One would think that rational decisionmakers would avoid exposing the U.S. to such risks. I am afraid that we must accept the fact that our real political leaders are possessed of a chaotic jumble of fundamentally inconsistent policy preferences which are driven by equal parts of ethnocentrism and vanity. Try as we might to fit these square pegs of delusion into the round holes of reason, we will fail.[/QUOTE]The recent decision set seems to bear your perspective out. :cool2:
2005-06-26 20:48 | User Profile
Ponce, you may have seen reference to Natural Gas reserves. I found this in a 2001 article at nigc website. [url="http://www.nigc.org/eia/israel.asp"]http://www.nigc.org/eia/israel.asp[/url] I don't have a way of finding their survey maps, but given Israel's modest shoreline, I'd guess that some proposed off shore wells might be off the Gaza coastline. [QUOTE] Israel's Petroleum Commission has estimated that the country could contain 5 billion barrels of oil reserves, most likely located underneath gas reserves, and that offshore gas potentially could supply Israel's short-term energy needs. Geologically, Israel appears to be connected to the oil-rich Paleozoic petroleum system stretching from Saudi Arabia through Iraq to Syria.
Overall, around 410 oil wells have been drilled in Israel since the 1940s, with little success. In early 1998, the Jerusalem Post reported that several Israeli oil companies intended [u]to explore for oil in waters offshore Israel's coast,[/u] and several foreign oil companies have expressed interest recently in this area. In late September 2000, for instance, a contract was signed between U.S.-based Ness Energy International and Lapidoth Israel Oil Prospectors Corp. to commence further work on the Har Sedom 1 well. In 1994, Enserch Corp. of Dallas signed an agreement with two Israeli companies to examine a 1,500 square mile area on the [u]Mediterranean coast.[/u] In another development, Isramco (a private company which absorbed the Israel National Oil Company when it was privatized in 1997), Delek, and Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corp. are partners in the Gevim 1 oil well being drilled near Sderot in the Negev desert. Isramco has stated that it is optimistic that the Gevim field will yield significant amounts of oil. [u]Meanwhile, oil was discovered near the Dead Sea town of Arad in August 1996, and is currently flowing at the rate of about 600 barrels per day. [/u]
[/QUOTE]Natural gas issues.
[QUOTE]Over the past year, in an important discovery for a country which has never had significant domestic energy resources, several energy companies (Israel's Yam Thetis group, Isramco, BG, and U.S.-based Samedan) have discovered significant amounts of [u]natural gas off the coast of Israel (and the Gaza Strip as well).[/u] Initial estimates of 3-5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in proven reserves would be enough potentially to supply Israeli demand for years, even without gas imports, although this now seems optimistic. Israel's new offshore gas reserves belong mainly to two groups: 1) the Yam Thetis group; and 2) a BG partnership with Isramco and others.
[/QUOTE]I found no referenct to oil wells near Nuseirat. That does not mean that such wells don't exist, of course, just that it is likely that production is likely nominal at best, and possibly depleted if the wells have been operation for some years.
[QUOTE=Ponce]Yes Marty, a while back I saw some old maps showing oil wells on the Gaza Strip near a town by the name of Nuseirat.....I think that's the way to spell it.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-26 22:07 | User Profile
AE,
Quote:
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Damn, I think I just broke a rib laughing. If he knew anything about logistics at the corps and army level, he'd realize how stupid he sounds.
The business about Iran is probably one of the worse kept secrets in D.C. Logistics are the last thing a Neocon would think about as events in Iraq have shown. Ritter's point, I believe, is similar to your's. They don't know sqaut about the military. Remember, Perle had the idiotic idea that only two brigades were needed to take Baghdad and Wolfowitz (I believe it was) wanted to move the 101st Air Assault directly to Baghdad on day one. I don't think that Ritter is being stupid here, it is the Neocons.
Here's something you may find of interest concerning Azerbaijan and Iran. [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200412/fallows[/url] I have the power point briefing referred to above if you wish to see it.
Despite the fair points you bring out above it still doesn't change the fact that Ritter was right and the "experts" wrong.
2005-06-26 22:19 | User Profile
Aah, the Atlantic link only gave me a teaser, I am not an online subscriber. Maybe I should be, they've had some great stuff in the past.
As to Ritter versus a think tank product, OK, I'll take Ritter as probably more credible on military matters. Former Jarhead, if I remember right.
Having done an analysis a few years back on MSR's in the Caspian region, for something completely different, I doubt much has improved for land LOC's.
The problem with the tactical success in Iraq, in terms of the dash up the river valleys: some folks think that a cookie cutter approach can be used to cut and paste that sort of operation elsewhere. In Azerbaijan, there is no SEALOC.
I'll need to look into Turkish infrastructure before I comment further.
Would love to see the powerpoint. :thumbsup:
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AA,
The business about Iran is probably one of the worse kept secrets in D.C. Logistics are the last thing a Neocon would think about as events in Iraq have shown. Ritter's point, I believe, is similar to your's. [/QUOTE] I will probably read his book when it comes out. His book on the Iraq weapons issue was provoking, if strident.
2005-06-26 22:24 | User Profile
AE,
The pdf and the entire Fallows can be found here: [url]http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2005/01/wargaming-iran.shtml[/url]
Ritter is a former Marine artillerist with the rank of Major.
2005-06-26 23:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AE,
The pdf and the entire Fallows can be found here: [url="http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2005/01/wargaming-iran.shtml"]http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2005/01/wargaming-iran.shtml[/url]
Ritter is a former Marine artillerist with the rank of Major.[/QUOTE] Yep.
I read the article. Many thanks for the link. The comment Kay made about how the wow factor of powerpoint decreases with every Power Point presentation one is forced to see made me chuckle.
Back in 1999, CDNET, or ZNET -- a tech site -- broke a funny story about General Shelton (then CJCS) issuing a "cease and desist" order on the multi megabyte Power point slides going back and forth across the satellite bandwidth. I think it was during Serbia bombing days.
His directive was to apparently stick to black and white, with text.
The tech site read on that was predictable: Bill Gates was hampering the war effort. Or something like that.
2005-06-26 23:39 | User Profile
Angel? I found it again, a insert in the National Geographic of 1947, the name for the whole place is PALESTINE and near that town it shows three oil towers and I don't know if it means three oil wells or a whole field.
Dosen't say anything about gas and the insert does not have a date but only the year.
2005-06-27 07:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]What possible strategic end would the annihilation of Iran's people serve? None. What political end? None. That screams of a straw man option.[/QUOTE]Can there be any doubt that the neocons want the Iranian population annihilated? Isn't annihilation the remedy for which Goldhagen is spinning theoretical justifications?
It is too criminal for the goy puppets, so it won't happen. But if there were a way to get it done the Neocons would do it in a minute.
2005-06-27 14:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Angel? I found it again, a insert in the National Geographic of 1947, the name for the whole place is PALESTINE and near that town it shows three oil towers and I don't know if it means three oil wells or a whole field.[/QUOTE] I live in what was once referred to as New Spain. It was also once part of the Confederate States of America. In 50 years, it may be part of Mexico again, if we fail to defend our borders.
What's your point?
Louisiana used to go all the way up the Mississippi. News flash, Ponce, people drew new lines on the map and changed the names. It is one of the charming things people do. Another charming thing they do is kill each other over the lines on the map and the names of the shapes on the map.
Israel is part of what was once called Judea, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was also part of Palestine. Funny thing, if you bother to check out a few facts, a King called Hussein sort of threw a bunch of the Paletsinians out on their asses in about 1970. It is still referred to as Black September. You ever hear of it?
When someone wins the next war and rewrites their preferred name onto that piece of the map, it will have yet another name, for a while, until the next bloodletting.
FWIW: 1947 maps don't cut a lot of ice in 2005. Did you notice that? Where oh where is Yugoslavia? Where is the German Democratic Republic? Where is the USSR? Nowhere. Just as Palestine is nowhere on the map, for the time being.
The lines aren't permanent, it's just a matter or redrawing a few with a little blood. Saddam redrew one such line in 1990, and in 1991 someone else redrew it yet again.
Humans have such quaint habits, don't you think?
2005-06-27 14:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yggdrasil]Can there be any doubt that the neocons want the Iranian population annihilated? Isn't annihilation the remedy for which Goldhagen is spinning theoretical justifications?
It is too criminal for the goy puppets, so it won't happen. But if there were a way to get it done the Neocons would do it in a minute.[/QUOTE] I figured that the neocons would want to find a way to make a buck off of them, rather than kill them all. My guess would be that exerting power over, or dominating, someone is more satisfying in the long term than the short term "thrill" of killing them. You will note that most wars kill relatively small parts of a nation's population in order to compel the rest into accomodating the victors desires, although there have been some wars of extermination. Can't seem to find much Cartheginian poetry in the library these days . . .
I need to check up on this Goldhagen person, thanks for the ref. :D
2005-06-27 15:17 | User Profile
AE,
Do a search here with the keyword "goldhagen". We have alot of material on this guy.
2005-06-27 15:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]Agreed, which is why I would be shocked if it ever happened. Iraq's Shia leadership is in regular contact with the Iranian government. It would be an instant two-front war. Absolute insanity. They cannot be that stupid, but who knows?[/QUOTE]
It would be absolute insanity.
But neokhan delusion makes all things possible.
An Armenian colleague of mine and I were hashing this over a few days ago. He thinks that an attack on Iran would radically change the alignments in the region.
The Empire would be driven into the arms of the Kurds - America's only natural ally in the region - and would be obliged to adopt Kurdish aspirations as its own. That would mean total alienation of Turkey, which would be forced to side with Iran and Syria in a united anti-Kurdish front (Turkey, Iran and Syria occupy big chunks of a contiguous Kurdistan). That means that Israel would have to abandon Turkey, and side with Turkey's other historic enemies, such as the Armenians and the Greeks.
The Armenians, by the way, are ticked off at Israel for denying the Armenian genocide of 1916, and also the public abuse of an Armenian archbishop in Jerusalem by some Jewish fanatic (spit in his face while he walked down the street). The Armenians are also now allied with Iran for geostrategic reasons (only reliable trading partner - the poor bastards are surrounded by Turks to the East and West and by the hapless Georgians to the north).
My colleague thinks that Armenia's star is rising, while Turkey's in deep doo-doo. He's betting the Empire will win.
It's an interesting theory. The Turks see it as a real possiblity. There's a popular novel now in Turkey that I'm told deals with this same scenario that ends I think with a nuke going off someplace, if memory serves.
Anyway, it's impossible to foresee how all of that would affect countries around the Caspian, including the Moslem, Turkic-speaking nations of Azerbaidzhan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kirghizstan. There are big Turkic populations in Afghanistan (Uzbeks) and China (Uighurs) as well. All of those groups have deep pan-Turkish traditions, and there would no doubt be a good deal of sympathy for their brother Turks. It's like a cobweb. Touch one strand and another completely unexpected one on the other side moves.
But it's an interesting theory.
The thing is that it might just work. The Empire needs lots of dedicated fighters on the ground, and the only real ally they have is the Kurdish people, who are itching to take out both Iran and Syria, but then there are those darned Turks. With Kurdish grunts taking the casualties and American smart weapons providing them cover, the Kurds could take the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran and Syria and unite them in a single, contiguous Kurdish state. That would allow the Empire to keep its vital distance from the enemy and not play by their 4G warfare rules, while keeping Imperial casualties to a minimum through the use of dedicated proxies.
BTW, as most of you no doubt are aware the Kurdish third of Iraq (in the north) around Kirkuk sits on one of the richest oil deposits on Earth, and there's no way to get the stuff to market, with Iran to the East, Syria to the West, the Sunnis and Shiite Arabs to the south, and a fanatically anti-Kurdish Turkey to the north. So, there's a major strategic energy interest to get those old pipelines working and new pipelines laid. And that means political stability in order to round up the financing, at least after the dust settles. That would likely mean that Kurdistan's boundaries (or that of a friendly puppet government) would extend either north through what is now Turkish territory to the Black Sea or west through Syria to the Mediterranean.
This is pure speculation, of course. But clearly something's gotta give. Uncle Sam's got his ass in a big ol' jam, as Country Joe and the Fish put it 35 years ago. I really don't see how the Empire intends to extricate itself from this mess. Hitching a ride on Kurdish nationalism might be the old fellow's last remaining option.
2005-06-27 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I figured that the neocons would want to find a way to make a buck off of them, rather than kill them all. [/QUOTE]
I think that Ygg's point is that the neokhans are not proceeding out of reason, but rather pure hatred. Hatred blinds them and causes them to do very self-destructive things.
In effect we're giving them more credit than they're due for cold deliberation.
This is their weak point, and it's something that this war is bringing out in ever greater relief.
2005-06-27 16:21 | User Profile
Angel, I think is funny that EVERY so called land owner in Palestine sold their land to the Jews, there is not one single tiny little square that shows that a Palestinian did not sold his land to the Jews.....do you really want me to believe that ?
In the old days they did not have paper work on land or home ownership but all knew what belonged to whom and all that a home owner needed was to hold the keys to the main door to the house.
Even if the Palestinian did not have a "country" it was still their land the same way that the indians in the Amazon dont have a country and yet the white man are using the same reasoning as the Jews in order to steal their land.
The Amazonian indians are also at war against the land grabbers that have invaded their territories if not their "country".
You are beggining to smell like a Jew my "friend" Angeleyes, carefull now. :taz:
2005-06-27 20:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Angel, I think is funny that EVERY so called land owner in Palestine sold their land to the Jews, there is not one single tiny little square that shows that a Palestinian did not sold his land to the Jews.....do you really want me to believe that ?
In the old days they did not have paper work on land or home ownership but all knew what belonged to whom and all that a home owner needed was to hold the keys to the main door to the house.
Even if the Palestinian did not have a "country" it was still their land the same way that the indians in the Amazon dont have a country and yet the white man are using the same reasoning as the Jews in order to steal their land.
The Amazonian indians are also at war against the land grabbers that have invaded their territories if not their "country".
You are beggining to smell like a Jew my "friend" Angeleyes, carefull now. :taz:[/QUOTE] Right. I write one thing, that blood draws lines on the map, and you perceive another. That's OK.
There is no disagreement that when the Brits spent 1919-1948 trying to have it both ways -- splitting up someone elses cake to give to two kids at a birthday party each a small piece -- the aboriginals were both unhappy, and ready to fight over it. You or I would have felt the same. A fight happened.
If the land was sold at gunpoint, which would not surprise me at all, it sounds like a few land deals in the old Southwest in America. Same old story, Ponce. Different studio, different lot.
2005-06-27 20:34 | User Profile
Yep, having seen a few mentions before, that is on my list of things to do when I get back in town. :cool: [QUOTE=Sertorius]AE, Do a search here with the keyword "goldhagen". We have alot of material on this guy.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-27 20:40 | User Profile
Walter:
For what it's worth. Before August 1990, there was a pipeline running oil from Northern Iraq through Turkey. I think it originated in the Mosul fields, and as far as I know is still in decent shape. (I am a few years out of date on that.) With supporting UN sanctions from 1991 -2003, Turkey was eating over a billion a year, US, in lost revenue/royalty on the fees they collected. THere is and was, not sure if it has yet been resolved, a major piss up between Iraq, Syria and Turkey over some dams on the Tigris and EUphrates in Turkey and water supply issues. Sort of like the US Mexico bits on the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers.
The Turks are about due for some serious anti Western sentiment, which will splash onto the US, if the EU finally ices them out. There was a Muslim party PM in the late 90's, Erbakhan or something like that, who may get real popular again.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It would be absolute insanity.
But neokhan delusion makes all things possible.
An Armenian colleague of mine and I were hashing this over a few days ago. He thinks that an attack on Iran would radically change the alignments in the region.
The Empire would be driven into the arms of the Kurds - America's only natural ally in the region - and would be obliged to adopt Kurdish aspirations as its own. That would mean total alienation of Turkey, which would be forced to side with Iran and Syria in a united anti-Kurdish front (Turkey, Iran and Syria occupy big chunks of a contiguous Kurdistan). That means that Israel would have to abandon Turkey, and side with Turkey's other historic enemies, such as the Armenians and the Greeks.
The Armenians, by the way, are ticked off at Israel for denying the Armenian genocide of 1916, and also the public abuse of an Armenian archbishop in Jerusalem by some Jewish fanatic (spit in his face while he walked down the street). The Armenians are also now allied with Iran for geostrategic reasons (only reliable trading partner - the poor bastards are surrounded by Turks to the East and West and by the hapless Georgians to the north).
My colleague thinks that Armenia's star is rising, while Turkey's in deep doo-doo. He's betting the Empire will win.
It's an interesting theory. The Turks see it as a real possiblity. There's a popular novel now in Turkey that I'm told deals with this same scenario that ends I think with a nuke going off someplace, if memory serves.
Anyway, it's impossible to foresee how all of that would affect countries around the Caspian, including the Moslem, Turkic-speaking nations of Azerbaidzhan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kirghizstan. There are big Turkic populations in Afghanistan (Uzbeks) and China (Uighurs) as well. All of those groups have deep pan-Turkish traditions, and there would no doubt be a good deal of sympathy for their brother Turks. It's like a cobweb. Touch one strand and another completely unexpected one on the other side moves.
But it's an interesting theory.
The thing is that it might just work. The Empire needs lots of dedicated fighters on the ground, and the only real ally they have is the Kurdish people, who are itching to take out both Iran and Syria, but then there are those darned Turks. With Kurdish grunts taking the casualties and American smart weapons providing them cover, the Kurds could take the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran and Syria and unite them in a single, contiguous Kurdish state. That would allow the Empire to keep its vital distance from the enemy and not play by their 4G warfare rules, while keeping Imperial casualties to a minimum through the use of dedicated proxies.
BTW, as most of you no doubt are aware the Kurdish third of Iraq (in the north) around Kirkuk sits on one of the richest oil deposits on Earth, and there's no way to get the stuff to market, with Iran to the East, Syria to the West, the Sunnis and Shiite Arabs to the south, and a fanatically anti-Kurdish Turkey to the north. So, there's a major strategic energy interest to get those old pipelines working and new pipelines laid. And that means political stability in order to round up the financing, at least after the dust settles. That would likely mean that Kurdistan's boundaries (or that of a friendly puppet government) would extend either north through what is now Turkish territory to the Black Sea or west through Syria to the Mediterranean.
This is pure speculation, of course. But clearly something's gotta give. Uncle Sam's got his ass in a big ol' jam, as Country Joe and the Fish put it 35 years ago. I really don't see how the Empire intends to extricate itself from this mess. Hitching a ride on Kurdish nationalism might be the old fellow's last remaining option.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-27 21:27 | User Profile
AE,
You're correct on that pipeline. It comes out at Iskenderun on the Mediterranean. As to its condition it has fallen on bad times. Iraqis keep blowing it up, so not much oil is being shipped through it. Most of the oil including that from the north is moved through Basra where the security situation is a little better.
Here's a website that keeps up with the pipeline situation: [url]http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm[/url]
Don't know if they are still arguing over the damning of the Euphrates.
Erdogan is the prime minister you refer to. He's the one who told Wolfowitz to go pound salt just before the invasion.
2005-06-27 21:43 | User Profile
AE,
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think that Ygg's point is that the neokhans are not proceeding out of reason, but rather pure hatred. Hatred blinds them and causes them to do very self-destructive things.[/QUOTE]
I think Walter is right when it comes to these guys. Personally, I really think some of this hatred goes back to Stalin's removal of Trotsky. These self destructive things are one day going to result in the elimination of Israel and possibly this country if we don't get a handle on them. It isn't simply foreign affairs they wish to indulge in, they can't help trying to profit on the side. Think Perle and Trireme.
[QUOTE]In effect we're giving them more credit than they're due for cold deliberation.[/QUOTE]
Can't argue with this either. For all their education, they really are quite stupid and ignorant of history as well. The only thing they excell at is Washington infighting. Self deception is another feature I note about them.
[QUOTE]This is their weak point, and it's something that this war is bringing out in ever greater relief.[/QUOTE]
That's true, Walter. If one listens to their hand puppets on tv and the radio they are saying alot of things that the Neocons are thinking, i.e., using nukes. Ocassionally, one of them will slip up and reveal this sort of thinking. Stephen Schwartz is a prime example of the lunacy that afflicts them. (there is also alot about him here)
2005-06-28 07:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AE,
You're correct on that pipeline. It comes out at Iskenderun on the Mediterranean. As to its condition it has fallen on bad times. Iraqis keep blowing it up, so not much oil is being shipped through it. Most of the oil including that from the north is moved through Basra where the security situation is a little better.
Here's a website that keeps up with the pipeline situation: [url]http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm[/url]
Don't know if they are still arguing over the damning of the Euphrates.
Erdogan is the prime minister you refer to. He's the one who told Wolfowitz to go pound salt just before the invasion.[/QUOTE]
There's one that goes through Syria, too, isn't there?
Also very old and creaky-leaky.
I don't know if any oil goes through it at this point.
Anyway, the main thing is that the Kurdish problem is tied up with the financing for new and improved pipelines. And as the price of oil goes up (over $60/bbl as I guessed several months ago) the pressure to get that oil to market increases.
Something's gotta give.
2005-06-28 10:47 | User Profile
There sure is, Walter.
Its terminus is the port of Baniyas with a spur that comes out at Tripoli, Lebanon.
This pipeline was built before 1985 as a way for the Iraqis to get the oil to the market during the Iran-Iraq War. The administration was always hollering about "smuggling" over it even though the U.S. attitude prior to Bush was wink and node. They didn't care prior to Shrub for right after the first Gulf War it was looked upon as a way for Syria to be paid off for his help and later the view was there was money to be made by our beloved transnationals. It was shut down sometime in late March or April of 2003
As a side note I find it funny that the US is buying electricity from Syria for Iraq, I think in exchange for oil so, the pipeline may once again be in service.
2005-07-02 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] Erdogan is the prime minister you refer to. He's the one who told Wolfowitz to go pound salt just before the invasion.[/QUOTE]Hehe, my memory was correct, it was Erbakan. :smoke: I was working for a Turk at the time. We are thinking of different PM's and different parties. [font=Geneva][QUOTE] [font=Geneva]On June 28, 1996, the head of the Refah (Welfare) party, Necmettin Erbakan, became the first Islamist prime minister in Turkey's history, joining former prime minister, Tansu Ciller, in a coalition government . . .[/font][/font][font=Geneva][font=Geneva] Erbakan was to serve as Prime Minister for one year, and then, relinquish the post to his coalition partner, Ciller. The ascent of Islamists to power in Turkey horrified many Kemalists (followers of [url="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/world_war_i_and_the_early_mandat.htm#ataturk takes power 1923"][color=#0000ff]Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" [/color][/url]who had abolished the caliphate and introduced other reforms strictly limiting the role of religion in civil life). The army [url="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/factsontheground.htm#turkey_army_intervention_1997"][color=#800080]forced Erbakan out in June, 1997[/color][/url]. [/font][/font] [font=Geneva] [font=Geneva]On January 18, 1998, the Turkish Constitutional Committee dissolved the [url="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/summary.htm"][color=#0000ff]Islamist[/color][/url] Refah ("Welfare") party that had ruled Turkey for [url="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/factsontheground.htm#refah assumes power in turkey"][color=#800080]one year.[/color][/url] A new Islamist party, Fazilet ("Virtue") took its place the following year but was soundly defeated in the April 18, 1999 general elections. This was heralded as the end of serious Islamist political challenges in Turkey . . . Refah never managed to gain the trust of the secularist urban classes. [/font][/QUOTE]That last bit is very interesting, considering the Israelis and Turks were in the late 1990's building stronger security ties. [QUOTE]On November 3, 2002 in Turkey, the Islamist party "Justice and Development" won a landslide victory in national elections (34.2% of the vote) ending fifteen years of government by coalition (BBC, Nov. 4, 2002). Party leader Recep Erdogan, who as mayor of Istanbul in the mid 90s had outlawed alcohol in city restaurants and who had said in a speech in 1995, "You cannot be secular and a Muslim at the same time," (New York Times, Oct. 31, 2002, A3), pledged that his party stood for democracy and would not seek to impose Islam on anyone. [/QUOTE][url="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/factsontheground.htm#refah%20dissolved"]http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/factsontheground.htm#refah%20dissolved[/url] Not sure if the site is all that great, but is has a decent timeline of Middle East history. [/font]
2005-07-02 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]There's one that goes through Syria, too, isn't there?
Also very old and creaky-leaky.
I don't know if any oil goes through it at this point.
Anyway, the main thing is that the Kurdish problem is tied up with the financing for new and improved pipelines. And as the price of oil goes up (over $60/bbl as I guessed several months ago) the pressure to get that oil to market increases.
Something's gotta give.[/QUOTE] Remember gas rationing in 1973 and 1974? Even and odd license plates?
I do.
2005-07-02 18:43 | User Profile
AE,
You nailed me on the prime minister. Well Done.
2005-07-04 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I figured that the neocons would want to find a way to make a buck off of them, rather than kill them all. My guess would be that exerting power over, or dominating, someone is more satisfying in the long term than the short term "thrill" of killing them. You will note that most wars kill relatively small parts of a nation's population in order to compel the rest into accomodating the victors desires, although there have been some wars of extermination. Can't seem to find much Cartheginian poetry in the library these days . . .
I need to check up on this Goldhagen person, thanks for the ref. :D[/QUOTE]Actually the first three books of the bible describe several ancient Hebrew genocides - all carried out with glee, if I recall them correctly.
The holy fathers of the early Catholic Church had the wisdom to see that Christ repudiated genocide as a means of settling disputes by propounding the doctrine of the just war.
The Goy puppets never studied or understood the doctrine of the just war, and have adopted the Izzy docrine of preemptive war.
It is now only a short hop to a war of extermination - officially approved by Classical Judaism and deeply ingrained their culture as a devinely commanded remedy to combat the evils of "anti-semitism".
2005-07-04 13:58 | User Profile
I don't suppose you are the famous WN commentator known as "Yggdrasil"? (Just checking).
Petr
2005-07-04 14:04 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Purple][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Actually the first three books of the bible describe several ancient Hebrew genocides - all carried out with glee, if I recall them correctly."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT]
Actually the elimination of tribes such as Midianites and especially Amalekites was not much different from early American pioneers finally getting fed up with the chronic predations of nomadic Indian tribes and wiping them out (or Russian cossacks striking back at their Tatar tormentors).
The destruction of the Canaanites parallels quite well with the destruction of the Aztec empire (another culture deeply addicted to human sacrifice and pederastic cults) in the hands of Spanish conquistadors.
Besides, God promised to Israelites that should they ever adopt the corrupt manners of Canaanites, they themselves would be swept away, which indeed happened TWICE, both by Chaldeans and by Romans...
Petr
2005-07-04 16:36 | User Profile
The Scriptures are clear on this point - there is a place for genocide when the nation's survival is at stake.
We Catholics also believe in the Natural Law - the notion that we can discern moral guidelines from our observations of nature. It seems to me that there is a compelling Natural Law argument in favor of genocide in certain limited circumstances. E.O. Wilson in his "On Human Nature" points out that all human beings have a genocide instinct - a sort of mental state that warriors enter in the extreme pitch of battle. The Scots called this mental state "going fay" and the English called it "going berserk" after the Viking warriors ("berserkers") who were apparently strongly inclined to enter that state much to thier chagrin. E.O. Wilson described a peaceful southeast Asian tribe that entered that state after being attacked by Communist insurgents - they slaughtered men, women, children of the outside group.
Now, if Nature saw fit to give all human beings this instinct, then surely that means that the Creator planned it that way. E.O. Wilson very illogically took the position that this instinct for genocide is an unfortunate atavistic mental appendage that we would be better off without, in the teeth of his general position that we should embrace our evolved natures as given, and arrange our social mores around them instead of denying our "bad" instincts and working to erase them. I suspect he said those things against the genocide instinct (my term) in order to get the book published.
But the conclusion seems inescapable: the Natural Law allows genocide under certain circumstances. And as I said this totally comports with Scripture. The Church in the Middle Ages, as Ygg points out, had a very developed theory on all of this. As a Catholic I struggle with the very recent blanket condemnation of genocide contained in the Catechism.
It seems very anomolous indeed that the Magisterium would take such a position, which seems at odds with both Scripture, Tradition, and the Natural Law.
2005-07-04 17:52 | User Profile
Genocide is much closer to Darwin than any fictitious supreme being. You can always find something in your book to justify what you gotta do when common sense dictates it. Only it's a very roundabout inefficient way where many people get lost drowned in dogma.
2005-07-04 18:07 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "The Scots called this mental state "going fay" and the English called it "going berserk" after the Viking warriors ("berserkers") who were apparently strongly inclined to enter that state much to thier chagrin. "[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Rudyard Kipling described Afghan Islamic berserks,[I] Ghazis [/I], in his (partly reality-based) short story [B]"The Drums Of The Fore And Aft"[/B]
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Georgia]"Then the foe began to shout with a great shouting, and a mass - a black mass - detached itself from the main body, and rolled over the ground at horrid speed. It was composed of, perhaps, three hundred men, who would shout and fire and slash if the rush of their fifty comrades who were determined to die carried home. The[B] fifty were Ghazis, half maddened with drugs and wholly mad with religious fanaticism[/B]. When they rushed the British fire ceased, and in the lull the order was given to close ranks and meet them with the bayonet.
Any one who knew the business could have told the Fore and Aft that the only way of dealing with a Ghazi rush is by volleys at long ranges; [B]because a man who means to die, who desires to die, who will gain heaven by dying, must, in nine cases out of ten, kill a man who has a lingering prejudice in favour of life[/B]. Where they should have closed and gone forward, the Fore and Aft opened out and skirmished, and where they should have opened out and fired, they closed and waited.
A man dragged from his blankets half awake and unfed is never in a pleasant frame of mind. [B]Nor does his happiness increase when he watches the whites of the eyes of three hundred six-foot fiends upon whose beards the foam is lying, upon whose tongues is a roar of wrath, and in whose hands are yard-long knives[/B]."[/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=kipling+fore+and+aft&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8[/url]
Petr
2005-07-04 18:21 | User Profile
Gary North (yes, that same guy who writes commentaries on LewRockwell.Com) has a few choice words on this Canaanite-theme:
[url]http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/indian.htm[/url]
[FONT=Georgia][COLOR=Purple]Furthermore, there is that other great, intolerable evil of the New England Puritans: the Puritans took land away from the "native Americans." You know, the Indians. (Liberals have adopted the phrase "native Americans" in recent years. [B]They never, ever say "American natives," since this is only one step away from "American savages," which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, Negro slave-holding, frequently land-polluting people were.... [/B] This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: "the stealing of Indian lands".... That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the question: From whom did the Indians of early colonial America get the land? They also never ask the even more pertinent question: Was the advent of the European in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians? [B]On the contrary, our three authors [Noll, Hatch, Marsden] ridicule the Puritans for having suggested that the Indians were the moral and covenantal equivalent of the Canaanites (p. 33). In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the "native Americans" did[/B].
[I]Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pp. 257-258. [/I] [/COLOR] [/FONT]