Article: Pentagon Intensifies Pressure on Iran [Archive]

Bman120

01-13-2007, 07:25 PM

This is a very interesting idea he is trying. After the elections and with Iraq getting worse, it looked like Bush was very limited in his options. With the bi-partisan Iraq study group recommending re-deployment and congress in the hands of people who mostly want that and will support it, it looked like events were marching him towards pulling back and giving Iran, Syria and Moqtada Al-Sadr a major victory.

Instead, he has taken a step that has shocked Iran into rare silence and has Al-Sadr so worried he is telling his fighters to avoid confronting the Americans openly to avoid a major battle and sleeping in different houses each night. He is showing everyone that he is down but definitely not out and that this isnt over. And in his speech he is now showing something that I am glad to see, a realization that this is it. Its his last shot to come out of this with something other than defeat. He is gambling that we can get the violence calmed down and it is possible. Most of this sectarian violence is limited to Baghdad and the area around it. With the surge and the new rules of engagement as well as new commanders, maybe we can make things better and blunt Iranian influence.

As for Iran itself, Ahmidenijad's influence and his popularity have sunk and he is very limited. If this surge works, it combined with Israel threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities will further weaken him as a viable candidate. And with the more moderate former president, I cant spell his name but it starts with an R, anyhow with his allies gaining vital seats in parliament, and the Supreme Ayatollah dying, the hardliners may be loosing their grip and maybe these global events will help further push the moderates into greater power, thus giving us someone to talk to through backchannels to work something out.

However if this doesnt work, its pretty much over. The next president will have to withdraw troops and we'll just have to hope that Iraq will settle its own affairs.

PenforPrez

01-13-2007, 07:40 PM

As for Iran itself, Ahmidenijad's influence and his popularity have sunk and he is very limited. If this surge works, it combined with Israel threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities will further weaken him as a viable candidate. And with the more moderate former president, I cant spell his name but it starts with an R, anyhow with his allies gaining vital seats in parliament, and the Supreme Ayatollah dying, the hardliners may be loosing their grip and maybe these global events will help further push the moderates into greater power, thus giving us someone to talk to through backchannels to work something out.

How do we do that when Bush clearly wants a war with Iran? That's becoming more obvious as events unfold. Bush does not want a diplomatic solution. No oil comes from a diplomatic solution.

Paul

Bman120

01-13-2007, 08:00 PM

How do we do that when Bush clearly wants a war with Iran? That's becoming more obvious as events unfold. Bush does not want a diplomatic solution. No oil comes from a diplomatic solution.

Bush doesnt want war with Iran. We couldnt win a war with Iran. We can defeat their military, but we can't hold that country or win over their people with troops.

Better to let their own people do the job of changing things. Its clear that Ahmidinajad is loosing support and the ayatollah is dying, possibly to be replaced by a council rather than just one man. With globalization forcibly opening Iran's youth up to the world, they are seeing that there is a better way than radicalization and they can be a model of combining religion with an open society. So its just a matter of time until things change.

As for diplomacy, we cant talk to them right now because any discussion with them would happen with Iran having the upper hand and no doubt dragging the nuclear issue into any discussion on Iraq. That is what this strategy is all about, showing Iran that we arent as weakened as they think and any discussion about issues there will be on our terms, not theirs.

And as for oil, this isnt about oil. If it was, then why on earth is it so expensive? We all but owned Iraq for some time, why didnt we grab the oil? Because that isnt why we went there.

PenforPrez

01-13-2007, 08:20 PM

And as for oil, this isnt about oil. If it was, then why on earth is it so expensive? We all but owned Iraq for some time, why didnt we grab the oil? Because that isnt why we went there.

The whole thing is a gigantic oil grab. We don't want the Russians or the Chinese to get it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061606D.shtml

In 1953, after the CIA helped oust Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who had nationalized the Iranian oil industry, American energy firms came to play a commanding role in Iran's oil industry with the blessing of the Shah. This remained true until he fell in the Khomeini revolution of 1979. They would no doubt love to return to Iran, if given the opportunity; but Washington's hostility to the Islamic regime in Tehran now precludes their reentry. Under Executive Order 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush, all U.S. companies are barred from operating in Iran. But should "regime change" ever occur there - the implied objective of U.S. policy - this Executive Order would be lifted and U.S. firms would be able to do what Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and other firms are now doing, exploiting Iranian energy supplies. Just how much energy figures into the administration's desire for political change in Iran cannot be fully judged from the outside, but given the close ties Bush, Cheney, and other key administration officials have with the U.S. energy industry, it is hard to believe that it doesn't play a highly significant one.

Paul

Bman120

01-13-2007, 09:16 PM

^ All that article proves is that they have a contingency plan in place incase Iran became more friendly, not that we are planning to "make it more friendly". Russia is exporting tons of oil and is using it for leverage with Belarus right now. And China is getting in with so many dictators right now they've got a steady supply of resources for some time now. Going to war with Iran just to cut off one supply of oil makes no sense when you look at this from a global scale.

Right now what is most important is keeping Iran's influence in the middle east in check. And with luck, this surge will help us do that in Iraq.

PenforPrez

01-29-2007, 04:40 PM

More indicatons of an attack on Iran very soon.

A report in the UK Sunday Herald quotes sources from Bulgaria as saying the U.S. may attack Iran from air bases in Bulgaria and Romania in April. I sniff some bias here, though.

http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0.america_poised_to_strike_at_ irans_nuclear_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_rom ania.php

However, this is not the first time I've seen April suggested as the time for a possible attack. There have been suggestions (I don't know how valid) that Bush wants to attack Iran before Tony Blair retires as British Prime Minister, which is scheduled for sometime before September.

Paul

Bman120

01-29-2007, 08:49 PM

We're not going to attack Iran. This is a pretty damn brilliant move by Bush and company to give the Iranians a massive piece of humble pie.

Ever since the golden mosque was bombed they've enjoyed killing American soldiers and formenting civil violence. Now Ahmadinejad has lost his popular support, is getting squeezed by the government, is getting squeezed by the ayatollah, the sanctions combined with the drop in gas prices will hurt him further. And now these moves put further pressure on him because his one saving grace, foreign policy, is now failing.

With all this, hopefully either Ahmadinejad will be thrown out or sidelined by the ayatollah and replaced with someone who will be more willing to negotiate.

nicholas

01-29-2007, 10:03 PM

Don't bet on that we won't attack Iran.... The US doesn't send a whole navel fleet to the Persian Gulf for a leisurely cruise.

The US military is over stretched, but when you count on the Israeli army to back-up America in attacking Iran, then you have a sizeable army.

The truth is, you do not attack another country unless there is some sort of pay off in the end. The US was the aggressor in this war, why? Because we need oil to fuel our expanding economies, and the Middle East is rich in oil.

I'll agree with PenForPrez, this is an oil grab war.

wordsmith

01-29-2007, 10:19 PM

What? We don't go to war to help people? :eek:

nicholas

01-29-2007, 10:25 PM

Short answer wordsmith.... No.

Bman120

01-29-2007, 11:09 PM

An army is good for two things, fighting a war, and showing the flag. Right now, that naval task force and the patriot missle batteries are there to show the flag and to kick Ahmedinajad while he is down.

That man has been riding on cloud nine for some time now and with his own people turning on him, now's the moment to put more pressure on the ayatollahs to remove him or to make sure he is sidelined or at the very least to guarantee he nor anyone like him will win the next election.

Iran is feeling the heat from all sides now and with all this, I bet we will see them flinch before this goes to war. If they do go too far and Israel attacks them, they will be forced to fight a war that would devestate them. No matter how much Ahmedinajad prattles on, the ayatollahs wont let it go that far.

PenforPrez

01-30-2007, 09:49 PM

We're not going to attack Iran. This is a pretty damn brilliant move by Bush and company to give the Iranians a massive piece of humble pie.

Then why are we treating Iran with no respect whatsoever? Why are we dealing with Iran with nothing but impudence and arrogance? Why is Bush flatly ignoring everything everybody is telling him?

Bush is either so arrogant that he does not care what anybody thinks, or he's living in a delusional la la land like Richard Nixon was in the closing act of Watergate. Or, more frighteningly, both.

The US military is over stretched, but when you count on the Israeli army to back-up America in attacking Iran, then you have a sizeable army.

I could see cooler heads prevailing if the U.S. attacks Iran, maybe in concert with Britain. David Cameron, who is the leader of the British Conservatives, said this week that a Tory administration would not rule out an attack on Iran.

However, if Israel is involved, I think there'll be one hell of a mess. Some more liberal writers think an attack on Iran will spark the Biblical Armageddon, but I don't see that just yet unless there is a direct Israeli connection. The last thing I want to see here is Israeli involvement.

Paul

Bman120

01-31-2007, 09:46 PM

Then why are we treating Iran with no respect whatsoever? Why are we dealing with Iran with nothing but impudence and arrogance?

Iran treats us with no respect and is arrogant as hell towards us so why should we treat them differently. They are shipping bombs to Iraq that have and continue to kill our troops. If you read the specifics of the abduction/execution of those American troops a few weeks ago, its got the revolutionary guards fingerprints all over it.

Believe me, as long as Ahmidenajad is in charge, there is no dealing with Iran. If we can get them to give him the boot, thats when things could change.

Bush is either so arrogant that he does not care what anybody thinks, or he's living in a delusional la la land like Richard Nixon was in the closing act of Watergate. Or, more frighteningly, both.

Bush knows exactly what he is doing. Between the pressure of the west on the nuclear program, the sanctions, the worstening economic issues and the expansion of technology making western culture more available to youth, Ahmedinejad is under a ton of pressure to live up to commitments he cant fufill.

If we can get him sidelined or out it would be a big help.

PenforPrez

01-31-2007, 10:09 PM

Iran treats us with no respect and is arrogant as hell towards us so why should we treat them differently. They are shipping bombs to Iraq that have and continue to kill our troops. If you read the specifics of the abduction/execution of those American troops a few weeks ago, its got the revolutionary guards fingerprints all over it.

The problem is, we started the war in Iraq. The responsibility for whatever happens is ours first.

The problem with the official story from the Bush administration about Iranian involvement is that he is at best grossly exaggerating the truth. There was a very interesting item recently in the Baltimore Chronicle on the subject (written by a Republican, by the way):

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, "Succeeding in Iraq . . . begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

Bush asserts that "these two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Bush's assertions are propagandistic lies.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi'ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi'ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi'ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.

Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011207Roberts.html

Bush knows exactly what he is doing. Between the pressure of the west on the nuclear program, the sanctions, the worstening economic issues and the expansion of technology making western culture more available to youth, Ahmedinejad is under a ton of pressure to live up to commitments he cant fufill.

If we can get him sidelined or out it would be a big help.

So why is Bush and the corporate media banging the war drum now? I find it quite laughable that the media in this country is painting Iran as the aggressor. When the U.S. (along with Britain, France and Germany) accused Iran of harboring a nuke program to start with.

Paul

Bman120

01-31-2007, 11:21 PM

The problem is, we started the war in Iraq. The responsibility for whatever happens is ours first.

If they truely have been influencing things as much as it seems they have then they bear a good amount of responsability for things too.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi'ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi'ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi'ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.

Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi'ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi'ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

Well for one thing, Iraqis are arabs where Iranians are persians so its not like they are brothers with the shiites. Also, even religion can be sidelined by pragmatism in many cases. The Iranians want to expand their influence and weaken the U.S's influence over there and if supplying both sides with bombs to kill Americans does that, then that is what they will do.

So why is Bush and the corporate media banging the war drum now? I find it quite laughable that the media in this country is painting Iran as the aggressor. When the U.S. (along with Britain, France and Germany) accused Iran of harboring a nuke program to start with.

The media is banging that drum. Because they love a good story and they love to bash Bush which is what this does because most Americans dont want another war unless it is necessary.

If you look at what is going on, you'll see we arent beating war drums so much as saber ratteling. For a while Iran has been winning out in Iraq and Ahmedinejad has been doing well. Now he is being hammered at home and many are starting to think his hardline policy towards the west isnt doing them any good and the ant-semetic crap he has been spewing hasnt been helping matters either.

He is weakened and now is the time to ratchet up the pressure. What we're doing is thowing them off balance. The Iranians and most of the world thought Bush would take the easy way out of Iraq and endorse aspects of the ISG and begin to talk and lay the groundwork to being redeploying. Instead he did what almost nobody thought he would do and upped the ante. This has thrown Iran off balance and with their other issues, now is the time to push back and show we arent going to be pushed around and we aren't going anywhere.

PenforPrez

02-01-2007, 08:01 PM

One reporter's military sources indicate an air strike on Iran may be very close; possibly by the end of this month. The sources are disgusted; the possibilities are frightening.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/013107.html

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region – and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

Who was it that was saying the media BASHES Bush?? :idea:

Paul

Bman120

02-01-2007, 08:37 PM

One reporter's military sources indicate an air strike on Iran may be very close; possibly by the end of this month. The sources are disgusted; the possibilities are frightening.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/013107.html

Holy biased article batman! At least they dont bother to hide their anti bush bias hense the well placed add for that "rise of the bush dynasty" book among other things.

But to get to the point, the article makes no sense. We can bomb Iran until there is nothing left to target but that wont stop the revolutionary guard not to mention Iran's regular military from making our lives in Iraq and Afghanistan a living hell. If we start droping bombs, they will come after us and we do not have the manpower to take and occupy Iran which is what it would take to subdue it. We can barely sustain this surge of only 20,000 troops and to take and hold Iran, we would need many times that.

Neither do the Israelis. Lets not forget they have Hezbollah to deal with. I doubt Ehud Olmert and Kadima would go for a strike unless they confirm that Iran is on the brink of getting nuclear bombs. Now if Likud takes power in the next elections, which is definitely possible, then it will be a different ballgame.

This whole situation with Iran is being blown out of proportion. We arent beating the drums of war. We are confronting a belligerent regional power who is out to subvert our interests in that region. It is obvious they want to dominate the region and unfortunately, toppling Hussain cleared the deck for them to do just that. We need to send them a clear message that this is unacceptable and that is what Bush is doing. Notice that we haven't heard much from Ahmadinejad about all this. He is usually playing the propaganda horn for all its worth but he has been largely quiet since Bush announced the surge and the tough tactics. He was taken off guard by Bush coming out swinging when pretty much nobody thought he would and its come at a bad time for Ahmadinejad at home too. They're feeling the pressure and now is the time to keep it going.

nicholas

02-01-2007, 09:59 PM

This whole situation with Iran is being blown out of proportion. We arent beating the drums of war. We are confronting a belligerent regional power who is out to subvert our interests in that region. It is obvious they want to [Iran) dominate the region and unfortunately, toppling Hussain cleared the deck for them to do just that.

Geez, I’m must be deluded, but I could have sworn it was the US that has intentions to dominate the region.

Visit the website of The Project For The New American Century, an organization that is affiliated with the Bush administration http://www.newamericancentury.org/

If the US wants to dominate and succeed in Iraq then it needs to take down Iran's military capabilities, I’m sorry but war with Iran is inevitable.

The motive for war is oil, so the US can't leave the power to distribute oil in the hands of countries that don’t particularly like the them.

For America to succeed in the Middle East it needs an all out war, otherwise they will need to pull out US forces, retreat back to America and face the consequences of not securing Middle Eastern oil.

Basically America is up shit creek without a paddle in a barbed wire canoe.

Bman120

02-01-2007, 10:33 PM

Geez, I’m must be deluded, but I could have sworn it was the US that has intentions to dominate the region.

Not dominate, but as with any major power, we want our interests protected and we dont want people coming after us. If we dont continue to be involved in that region, they will see to it that we will be on their terms. That's the reality of the situation now. Wether we like it or not our destiny is in part tied up there. And we need to see to it that we make it work.

If the US wants to dominate and succeed in Iraq then it needs to take down Iran's military capabilities, I’m sorry but war with Iran is inevitable.

I donno about that. Any successful politician needs pragmatism in his arsenal, that goes for the Iranians too. There is discontent with Ahmadinejads confrontational stance and if the ayatollahs are smart, they will start to find a face saving way to compromise on the nuclear issue. As for Iraq, a stable neighbor is important to Iran and if we can show them they wont get what they want by force, we can get them to negotiate. This can happen if we can get rid of Ahmadinejad.

The motive for war is oil, so the US can't leave the power to distribute oil in the hands of countries that don’t particularly like the them.

If it was just about that then we'd be all set with Iraq's oil fields at our disposal. It's also about terrorism and islamic fundamentalism. As long as islamic fundamentalism is thriving over there, we cant just leave the region alone.

For America to succeed in the Middle East it needs an all out war, otherwise they will need to pull out US forces, retreat back to America and face the consequences of not securing Middle Eastern oil.

What America needs to succeed is a middle east where the people are able to sustain themselves and arent desperate and poor. Getting rid of poverty and anger among youth is key to stamping out radicalism. War alone wont do that. We need to engage the people there directly and go around the corrupt governments. We need to get the people sattellite dishes, and all the western amenities and items we can get in there and show the people what their missing. The best way to change policies is to get the people there to do it. It will take time but then this war has been billed as a generational conflict so we have time.

nicholas

02-02-2007, 12:36 AM

I'm sorry Bman but you've been thourghly mislead by media spin and propaganda, the motive for war was 100 percent oil driven. The notion that extreme terrorists and Islamo fascism was a threat to our way of life was total crap spun to an uneducated public in order to sell the Iraq war,

Go read up everything you possibly can about the nature of crude oil, then in a years time when you've absorbed all that you know about it, get back to me.

Untill then, don't let the sheet be pulled over your eyes about the motive for war in Iraq, because I’m telling you now it isn’t about terrorism and Islamo fascism.

Here’s your first hint to think about.

The American government doesn’t use half a trillion dollars in a war effort, thus far, if it isn’t going to pay a dividend at the end of it. That dividend is access to oil which will be contracted through American companies.

If the war was about terrorism, you’d just do a better job at defending your country within your own borders, bit cheaper than going to fight a war you can’t win.

PenforPrez

02-02-2007, 02:56 PM

The American government doesn’t use half a trillion dollars in a war effort, thus far, if it isn’t going to pay a dividend at the end of it. That dividend is access to oil which will be contracted through American companies.

Precisely. Why is it that Iraq's oil industry is suddenly being denationalized and the Iraqi government has magically asked American oil firms to build a new $3 billion petrochemical plant in Iraq? Not the French or the Chinese or the Russians or not even the British.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070125/chevron-corp.htm

What worries me more is testimony given to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by former General Charles Wald, who used to be a top American commander in Europe. This testimony was given three weeks ago, on January 10.

But I also learned that a lot of people think the military is solely responsible for national security. I like to call this the “Dial 1-800-The U.S. Military” syndrome, because it reflects how people assume the military is a “toll-free” resource that can be called on to perform tasks that no one else has the capability for or the will to execute. I remember once I was introduced to some oil company executives in Kazakhstan, and before we began talking one of them thanked me and the U.S. military for protecting the flow of oil around the world. He was serious and sincere about this, and I was seriously concerned. This man’s world view included the expectation that the U.S. military will be there to provide security all over the world to ensure the free flow of oil without assistance from others. It did not seem like a good model to me.

. . .

The United States protects the global oil trade for the benefit of all nations. In part, this is because the U.S. has unmatched military capabilities. But another reason is that other nations know the U.S. military is out there doing the job.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1595&Witness_ID=4528

Note also that General Wald insists that the U.S. curtail domestic oil demand, and made very good points on doing so.

Paul

Bman120

02-02-2007, 09:08 PM

I'm sorry Bman but you've been thourghly mislead by media spin and propaganda, the motive for war was 100 percent oil driven.

Really now? That's interesting because a good chunk of the media is anti war and anti Bush administration so if they had brainwashed me I don't think i'd be arguing the points I have been. Sorry but this is one thing that can't be blamed on the spin of the media.

The notion that extreme terrorists and Islamo fascism was a threat to our way of life was total crap spun to an uneducated public in order to sell the Iraq war,

So the threat from Islamic fundamentalism was spun to sell the war? If that's so then can you explain why they've attacked us over and over again and have every desire to continue this?

And its not just us they're after either, Australia is in their sights too. And you have a pretty substantial muslim population there, a chunk of which is becoming radicalized. You have clerics over there radicalizing youth just like they are doing over in Britain. Remember the london bombers? They were a homegrown cell. And there are others over there like the one they just nabbed.

You've got the same problem down there, that's why Howard has taken some steps to try and curb this radicalization. So make no mistake, the threat from radical islam is very real and is right in your midst.

The American government doesn’t use half a trillion dollars in a war effort, thus far, if it isn’t going to pay a dividend at the end of it. That dividend is access to oil which will be contracted through American companies.

There are many benefits of this war going well, including the ones related to oil. However Oil is not the only benefit nor is it by any means the most important one. A more stable middle east will reduce the conditions that feed radical fundamentalism, it will lead to greater exposure to western culture which will break down cultural stereotypes that have hurt women and minorities as well as improve an understanding of "the great satan" which will lead to better relations with the west. And the list goes on and on.

If the war was about terrorism, you’d just do a better job at defending your country within your own borders, bit cheaper than going to fight a war you can’t win.

That's like saying you stop a weed problem by cutting the stems. The only thing that does is keep it down until it comes back again which it will.

You need to stop terrorism at its roots just like weeds. The roots if islamic fundamentalism arent here in the US. They are in the middle east. If we want to really stop terrorism, that is where the battle needs to be waged.

nicholas

02-03-2007, 03:56 AM

You haven’t been brainwashed, you've been seriously mislead, and it still shows that you have been mislead something horrific.

You have to understand that Terrorism is a private, close knit organization, meaning that you will never fight it on a war front. There is nothing stopping me or you from taking an Ak-47 in the middle of New York and mowing down anyone in sight for whatever motive you have for doing it. Terrorism is underground, and it is too much of a generalization to blame people of Islamic faith, or what have you, for causing terrorism.

And first and foremost let’s take a look back in history and see who are the terrorists here. America's involvement in the Middles East in the last century has been enormous and quite influential, it was the US that was shaking hands with Sadam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait, it was the US who supported Iraq during the Iraq - Iran war. I’m telling you now, America doesn’t give of shit about the well being of the next Arab, Muslim, Islamist, etc, as long as they get their oil contracts.

It's clear to me that you've swallowed the "Fear Card" hook line and sinker.

3000 lives lost in September 11..... Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in the Middle East, and that’s just the current Iraq war, if we totaled the amount of lives lost in the Middle East from Americas historic involvement there, it would reach into the millions.

Your tone of language speaks typical Christian fundamentalism, we must eradicate the fundamentalists over there before they eradicate us, another fear card that you've swallowed.

It is about oil, it’s entirely about oil, and nothing is going to change my point of view on that. You need to know something about the nature of oil that gives the motive for the US to have such a historic involvement in the Middle East, and then when you realize how America has been involved in the Middle East, will you then realize why there is such hatred towards it.

You need to go back to the books, read a little more on Middle Eastern / American history, then read up about the nature of oil.

This is, and always will be about oil.

Bman120

02-03-2007, 12:53 PM

You have to understand that Terrorism is a private, close knit organization, meaning that you will never fight it on a war front. There is nothing stopping me or you from taking an Ak-47 in the middle of New York and mowing down anyone in sight for whatever motive you have for doing it.

You are talking about the idea of terrorism and on that front, your correct. You can't kill an idea. However the people who hold and export that idea are far more vunerable. And that is what the war on terrorism is all about. Stopping those who export terrorism.

Terrorism is underground, and it is too much of a generalization to blame people of Islamic faith, or what have you, for causing terrorism.

The main terrorist organization we are fighting, Al-Qaida is made of islamic fundamentalists. Hezbollah is made of islamic fundamentalists, same goes for the Iranian revolutionary guard, Ansar Al Sunni, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Asqua Matryr's brigade and many others.

It is no generalization that the greatest terrorist threat we face right now comes from islamic fundamentalists bent on terrorism.

And first and foremost let’s take a look back in history and see who are the terrorists here. America's involvement in the Middles East in the last century has been enormous and quite influential, it was the US that was shaking hands with Sadam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait, it was the US who supported Iraq during the Iraq - Iran war. I’m telling you now, America doesn’t give of shit about the well being of the next Arab, Muslim, Islamist, etc, as long as they get their oil contracts.

Things change. Wasn't Australia once a penal colony? So we were once allied with Hussain. He was the enemy of Iran and the enemy of my enemy is my friend as the old saying goes. Just like Australia changed, so did our relationship with Hussain.

Its true that our past in the middle east is sketchy to say the least. We did some awful things and so did the Europeans. But that by no means justifies what they are doing to us. And it by no means gives them an excuse for the many problems that region has. They were freed from European colonialism some time ago. They could have cleaned up the mess and made themselves into something great.

Instead, they noticed how rich the white man became by exploiting them and decided, why not do that to each other so we can get rich? And of course, they put all the blame for their problems now on the west. And its really sad.

And if you think its just a matter of leaving them alone to stop terrorism, thats way off. If we just withdraw, they'll just bring the problems they have there over here. Maybe some governments dont care about arab well being, but they dont care about ours either. Keep that in mind.

3000 lives lost in September 11..... Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in the Middle East, and that’s just the current Iraq war, if we totaled the amount of lives lost in the Middle East from Americas historic involvement there, it would reach into the millions.

And how many of those hundreds of thousands died in insurgent attacks targeting Americans? How many died as Zarqawi tried to incite civil war by targeting Iraqis? How many have died at the hands of their fellow Iraqi in the sectarian violence that followed the golden mosque bombing? After Hussain was overthrown, Iraqis could have come together to end the violence and create a new nation, instead they've chosen to kill each other. Don't blame America for that, it was their choice.

Your tone of language speaks typical Christian fundamentalism, we must eradicate the fundamentalists over there before they eradicate us, another fear card that you've swallowed.

I'll admit I am catholic but i'm by no means a fundamentalist. Your trying to justify what they're doing by blaming it on America's past actions. Well guess what, part of life is moving on from the past. Sure the west did victimize them in the past but that doesnt justify the violent regimes they've erected and the brutal laws theyve enacted that treat people, especially women, like crap and the violent campaign of terrorism they've inflicted on the west. If they concentrated all the effort and money they spend on attacking us on improving their own lives, then they'd be a lot better off.

You need to go back to the books, read a little more on Middle Eastern / American history, then read up about the nature of oil.

You keep saying this. What is it about oil that I need to read up on? Its clear that its been a major motivator for American interests over there. And I wont deny that America and the west have done terrible things to get it. But as i've said, what was done in the past doesnt justify what they are doing now nor does it earn them a drop of sympathy. They need to get past the violence or in a hundred years, they'll just be where they are now, killing each other and trying to kill us.

nicholas

02-03-2007, 10:09 PM

Bman,

Here is a little primer for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RxCpF3_Q_c

Xander

02-04-2007, 03:07 AM

...as long as they get their oil contracts.
How long do you think the oil will last as the predominant energy source?

3000 lives lost in September 11..... Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in the Middle East, and that’s just the current Iraq war, if we totaled the amount of lives lost in the Middle East from Americas historic involvement there, it would reach into the millions.
What's your point?

This is, and always will be about oil.
What's your solution to the problem? Pull out all troops and all military and political ties to the Middle East? Then the extremists will be content with their lives and leave us alone? (These aren't rhetorical questions... I want to know what you think)

...anyway, in other news, check out this article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2583167,00.html

I think it's awesome that Sarah Baxter started the article with "A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances." Oh no! An obviously brilliant scientist (he won a freggin award!) was myyysteeeeriously killed? God damn those Israelis! The world has lost such a bright light!

Wait, what's that blurb at the bottom of the article? He won an award for... what? weapons research? Wait, he dedicated his life to developing weapons? That's not as cool... but hell, he still won an award! And it was a mysterious death!

:rolleyes:

If this really is Mossad, then fantastic work. Brilliant.

nicholas

02-04-2007, 06:42 AM

My point is Xander, the motive for war in the Middle East has been to acquire Middle Eastern oil fields to keep an ever increasing flow of oil to the US, why? Because oil is the one component or resource that keeps our economies running. Now if the American way of life, which to me seems like an over-consuming juggernaught, is dependent on Middle Eastern oil, then the only way to acquire it is to take it. I’m not disputing that there are terrorists organizations trying to harm the US, but what I’m trying to tell you is that terrorism is a barrier to oil, not the end result which the US is trying to have you believe.

The end result for the US isn’t to get rid of Islamic Fundamentalists, it’s to break through the barrier that terrorism poses to acquire oil fields in the Middle East, terrorists are just a barrier to that oil, they aren’t the primary mission in the Middle East, oil is.

So my point to you is that people are not dieing for the sake of fighting terrorism, they are dieing for the sake of keeping America’s consumptive way of life continuing on an upward trend. The US military is being used as a “tool” in the war on terror to keep big business in America rolling on.

Xander you go on to ask me what I think the solution to the problem is.., well if the actions of the US are anything to go buy, its to wage war and occupy Middle Eastern countries thus acquiring their oil fields, the Bush administration isn’t closed eyed about this, they know well and truly the dire consequences of failing in Iraq. ‘They who hold the oil holds the power’, and this is exactly what the US is afraid of, fundamentalist regimes that can yield economic power over the US with their oil reserves.

Michael Klare Interview on War for Oil
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Klare.html

But oil is a finite resource anyway, even if we could capture Middle Eastern oil, it wouldn’t stop the fact that it is about to reach global terminal decline which will translate into much higher prices thus threatening our economies anyway.

I think America can’t pull out of Iraq now, it would send the Middle East in chaos, but my argument is that they should never have gone there in the first place, because this war is not winnable, having said that, I don’t see any other option now but for them to stay there and hope for the best, but the Bush administration has created a very big mess and has put the US in a very dangerous situation.

The main point to realize is that oil isn’t near to running out, its at its half way point which means we will produce less and less oil than the year before on a global output scale. You have to know a little bit about economics to understand why this is a very dangerous situation. There is thus far no alternatives that match oils high energy content and economic returns.

In Mexico the Cantarell field reached its peak last year and is in a rapid decline, Cantarell is the second largest oil field in the world behind Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, so the chances are we are very close to the global peak.

Cantarell Decline - http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070130/25557_id.html?.v=1

There’s not much we can do about it, but the reason why I’m telling you this is so that you know the truth about the motives for war in Iraq, so that you don’t get sold a half baked story, that’s all.

Xander

02-04-2007, 01:53 PM

I think America can’t pull out of Iraq now, it would send the Middle East in chaos, but my argument is that they should never have gone there in the first place, because this war is not winnable, having said that, I don’t see any other option now but for them to stay there and hope for the best, but the Bush administration has created a very big mess and has put the US in a very dangerous situation.
Absolutely agreed. That's why I went to Washington DC before the war to protest the rumor of war. We should never have gone there, but I think the administration knew that once we committed ourselves to it, we couldn't (in good conscience) pull out leaving a mess. "Sorry about screwing your country up. Bye bye!"

"Win" is a relative term. Some think we've won taking out Saddam, some (like me) think we'll win when Iraq has a stable democratic government, some think we'll win when the entire region is peaceful, etc...

I hated the idea of going to war so much that I was willing to put my life on hold to go to Washington and protest. Since you agree the US has an obligation to clean up the mess, why protesting the war now? It's crying over spilled milk. I'd focus on discussion about how to end occupation in Iraq, what is going wrong, and how to make it right.

Do you know how much oil the US imports, and from whom?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Lets say the oil imports from Iraq quadruples. Do you know much cheaper gasoline would be in the US? A few cents. Do you know much oil reserves the US has?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html

Lets say US politicians prefer domestic control of energy vs. foreign dependence on energy. If that's true, they would prefer oil prices stay at the $70 range that it was a few months ago, and even rise higher. Would you prefer to rely on your own production, or foreign production? I'd prefer my own.

But oil is a finite resource anyway, even if we could capture Middle Eastern oil, it wouldn’t stop the fact that it is about to reach global terminal decline which will translate into much higher prices thus threatening our economies anyway.
This is speculation. Show me real statistics showing this, and I'll show you real statistics countering it (there are strong arguments for both). We just don't know how much oil there is, or even how it's created. We do know some oil fields are producing less oil, but that's not a statistically significant variable to conclude "we're running out!"

(interesting read)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837

The main point to realize is that oil isn’t near to running out, its at its half way point...[quote]
Speculation. No one knows how much oil is left. We could have significantly less or more.

[quote]...which means we will produce less and less oil than the year before on a global output scale. You have to know a little bit about economics to understand why this is a very dangerous situation. There is thus far no alternatives that match oils high energy content and economic returns.
That's fantastic, because I know a lot about economics. And I know nuclear power far surpasses gasoline. Oil is an incredibly crude energy (pardon the pun). New nuclear reactors even efficiently produce hydrogen, which can be used to cheaply power fuel cells. They're clean and safe... so why are people so afraid of them?

And even if oil fields run low, it wont mean chaos. It means people will be pushed to use alternative energies (which are entirely ally-nation produced technologies), which I'm very much in favor of. I want oil prices to skyrocket, and the benefits of alternatives to become so attractive that more and more people adopt them to the point where it becomes cheap.

There’s not much we can do about it, but the reason why I’m telling you this is so that you know the truth about the motives for war in Iraq, so that you don’t get sold a half baked story, that’s all.
I absolutely agree that oil has something to do with it. But my strategy mind knows better than to think oil has everything to do with it. We're dealing with a global issue, and they're hardly so clearcut and simple to explain. Consider what I've said earlier. It makes little to no economic sense to spend hundreds of billions to wage a war and take on so much negative pressure, when that money could be used for far more productive needs (with regards to energy). But that aside, consider where Afghanistan and Iraq reside on the map. Who's sandwiched in the middle? All eyes move back to the topic of this thread: Iran.

I'm willing to bet Bush thought we would've been in control of Iraq already, with the seeds of democracy flourishing. Same with Afghanistan (which is more of a long term mess than Iraq). Our focus then shifts to squeezing Iran until they can't breath, supporting any anarchy in their country, pushing for regime change (abandoning their nuclear plans). Iran having nukes is more pressing than anything in the region in my opinion... it just can't be allowed to happen. Not while their president keeps calling for the destruction of Israel, the US, etc. etc.

Last question: Where do you see Australia fitting into the current situation with Islamic extremists?

nicholas

02-04-2007, 08:12 PM

Ok Xander this is the way I look at it.

In the 1970s US oil production peaked at roughly 11 million barrels per day, since then US oil production has been declining and its currently producing 5 millions barrels per day, quite a substantial fall in the production of oil for the US, thus making them more and more dependent on imports from other countries.

It is a widely accepted fact, that oil is in fact a finite resource, produced over millions and millions of years from dead plant & animal matter. It is not produced in the centre of the earth because that’s where liquid magma comes from, volcanoes spew out what’s created in the centre of the earth, molten rock. It is no speculation. We started to run out of oil the moment the first barrel of oil was produced, that is the nature of consuming something that is finite in nature.

Chevron, a major oil company, makes not debate as to the origins of oil. http://www.chevron.com/products/learning_center/crude/

So lets assume for arguments sake that oil was a renewable resource, well this doesn’t excuse the fact that we are still using it up at a rate that far exceeds the ability for those fields to renew themselves. The evidence lies in the decline of US oil production itself, and individual fields.

The US imports ¾ of the amount of oil it needs for daily functioning, and that amount is increasing year after year. It is a net importer of oil, it is also the largest consumer of oil in the world, accounting for ¼ of worldwide demand for one country. If the US decided to cut its reliance on foreign oil and only use its own, it would send the price of crude oil well above 100 dollars a barrel, it would be economic suicide, so although it would favor the oil companies, it would not favor the economic situation as a whole.

World Oil Demand Pie Chart - http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

I’m no hater of Nuclear Power, it’s really the only available option if you want to keep the “business-as-usual” life style powering on into the future, because if we keep burning fossil fuels, we will only continue to add to the problem of global warming.

Now you bring up the premise that we can switch to alternatives, which is correct, but this has yet to be proven as a worthy transition, so until then, I will hold the belief that there aren’t any viable alternatives to power our economic situation with other technologies. The alternatives that we do have are fantastic in and of themselves, but they have to prove themselves worthy of possessing the capabilities of powering us on into the future on the scale that we are at the moment, which is a very energy intensive one.

Keep in mind also that oil is used for many more purposes than just for the fuel in your car. The whole agricultural industry is wholly dependant on fossil fuels for producing artificial fertilizers and pesticides, without these chemicals we could not grow our food. Think of all the products made out of plastic and rubber, they were all manufactured from oil, the list is endless.

Oil shale does contain a considerable amount of oil, your absolutely correct, what they don’t tell you is that to extract the oil from the shale is an immensely energy intensive operation. It’s not so much the amount of oil that is the problem, it’s the rate at which we can extract that oil to bring to the market place to meet demand on time. Extracting oil from shale is a very slow process when compared to the luxury we have enjoyed from light sweet crude which literally just flows like water.

Problem with oil shale - http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/22062006.html

Now if we go back over to the Middle East, your correct in stating that we do not know how much oil is actually there, your absolutely right, the reason why is because energy agencies are denied access to audit Middle Eastern Oil Fields, they are under protection from professionals acquiring the necessary data to come up with a true picture as to how much oil is actually there. Middle Eastern oil producers are all forging there books onto how much oil they actually do have, which in most cases is an exaggerated amount.

Mathew Simmons, an Energy Investment Banker & Advisor to President Bush on Energy, talks about the issues we’re talking about. http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/150

The Middle East remains at the epicenter of the world oil markets, it is central to Americas demand for oil. It is in America’s interest to make it secure, I’ve done the math’s, people don’t have to agree, but hey… that’s democracy for you.

As for Islamic Extremists, well I don’t feel threatened at all, like I stated before, there’s nothing stopping anyone from any background committing an act of terrorism, you can not fight terrorism on a war front, and that is why I don’t care much for the war in Iraq, I think its at absolute joke, but the US is there now and they have do what they can to minimize collateral damage. Islamic extremists influence in Australia is miniscule and non-threatening to say the least.

Just remember this… The Bush administration sold the war on Iraq for these reasons

~ Weapons of Mass Destruction – There were none found in the end, besides, who attacks a country that does have weapons off mass destruction, especially ones that are in the hands of an “evil dictator”?

~ An affiliation with Al Qaeda – Osama Bin laden headed the Al Qaeda Network and hated Saddam Hussein, there was never an affiliation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, President Bush later admitted on National TV that there was in fact no connection between the two.

~ Regime Change – why? Why change a regime half way around to world that has nothing to do with you? Oil…… maybe….?

It will be an interesting year…..

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors – A documentary about the current issues that we are discussing here.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370&q=julian+darley

Xander

02-05-2007, 01:53 AM

nicholas, I don't intend to argue, but thanks for making your position clear.

It is a widely accepted fact, that oil is in fact a finite resource, produced over millions and millions of years from dead plant & animal matter.
As far as I know, this is not a fact, but the best theory presented. It's what they taught in school, and what we accept to be fact (like Pluto is a planet).

I don't know why you're against using up oil. It wont disappear over night. We will never run out. It will just become ungodly expensive, forcing people into alternatives (far before it becomes ungodly expensive). This is how the market works. I welcome expensive oil if only because I'd get to breathe a little easier. When gasoline is $15 a gallon, and fuel cells or ethanol is $14 for the same "gallon," I guarantee you people will switch to the alternative (businesses would have switched far sooner, making it cheaper for the public as a whole due to economies of scale). I sure as hell would prefer the cheaper source. This is a factual transition that I'd bet my life on. People freely move to what provides them more benefits/less costs (cheaper energy).

...artificial fertilizers and pesticides, without these chemicals we could not grow our food.
How did people grow food a hundred years ago? Also, genetically modified crops have proven to produce greater yield with little to no dependence on fertilizers and pesticides. Breakthroughs are happening all the time. This is another issue since some crazy people hear "genetic" and freak out. They should take a basic biology class.

As for shale, again, it's all about costs and benefits. As the cost of getting traditional oil exceeds the costs of taking it out of inefficient shale, shale becomes more and more attractive as traditional oil increases in price. Basic economics. This is why, since domestically we have a ton of shale, people who don't want to be reliant on foreign energy should be happy when oil goes up in price. This makes domestic production more attractive to companies who will gladly shell (no pun intended) out cash to develop this new process to make it more efficient and cost effective. After all, they want to make money. They'll go for the cheapest source available.

Middle Eastern oil producers are all forging there books onto how much oil they actually do have, which in most cases is an exaggerated amount.
If we don't know how much they have, how do you know they're exaggerating? Isn't this contradictory? "No one knows... but I know it's less."

The Middle East remains at the epicenter of the world oil markets, it is central to Americas demand for oil. It is in America’s interest to make it secure...
I absolutely agree. But where is the cross-section for the costs and benefits? I disagree that the benefits from a US-backed Iraq outweighs the costs we've already incurred and will incur... and for what? Control of Iraq's oil? They'd still sell the oil to us at market price, on the open market. It's not like we take over Iraq and we get billions of barrels "at cost." However, the benefits of a democratic Iraq may outweigh the costs we're incurring. Democracy is infectious. Most people prefer more liberty to less (except socialists). If Democratic Iraq succeeds, they set a dangerous example to other arab states controlled by regimes.

But personally, I strongly feel it's none of our business to be in Iraq in the first place (even for long term strategic reasons). But again, this is a sunk cost and there's no point discussing it.

I'd rather middle east (ME) countries build up their military and provoke the world into war rather than have the US "police" it with our money and our people. i.e. let the Nazis invade the UK before we step in. Don't try preempting. At the very least, then, we have moral ground. Some people will say it's too late at that point in our day in age, but frankly I'm starting to think "give peace a chance!" people need a good kick in the crotch. Perhaps what we need to do is to pull out of the affairs of the world, and let them fuck each other up. Kuwait gets invaded? Tough. Famine in Somalia? Gee-whiz. Genocide in Darfur? Whatever. Australia gets invaded? Its your business.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the US has stepped in to the affairs of others too often. Perhaps we should just leave the rest of the world alone and help ourselves.

Of course this kind of thinking is shortsighted. But then where's the middle ground? We could've just bombed the hell out of Iraq (we destroyed their military infrastructure within hours) and left them to sort it out.

Islamic extremists influence in Australia is miniscule and non-threatening to say the least.
Yes, but lets say the US is run over by extremists. How safe will you feel then? You guys didn't feel too safe during WWII... (by the way, I have the utmost respect for ANZAC forces)

The crap the Bush administration told the country to justify the war are, well, crap. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, but they weren't in the quantities Bush claimed. I agree with the Al Qaeda statement. For regime change, read above. Not oil, but to spread a philosophy of government that we have no right to do unless you think the ME is a long term threat. I think the ME will be a joke in the coming decades. Besides oil, what do they have? The leadership of ME countries should be ashamed for having squandered their gift of oil. Well, all but Dubai and a few select others.

Careful about documentaries and any "news" and such that is too one-sided. I get a red flag when I hear about something that's opposite of what I agree with, but I get an even more serious red flag when I hear something that completely agrees with what I believe... they're clear signs of propaganda, demagoguery, and the like.

*sigh* We all agree, I think, it's a shitty situation. But if Mossad keeps assassinating key Iranians, we might not have to deal with a nuclear Iran.