Meeting this week in Chantilly, Virginia.
And I'm sure this question is on the agenda, among many others.
What's best for the world ruling elites will be the choice.
I think that the neo-cons are just looking for some sort of excuse to expand this war. Expansion of this war is the best chance for the election of John McCain--that's obvious. However, a Democrat victory would threaten a number of corporate and bureacratic interests.
I really fear this administration would stage such an action, and I pray that I am wrong on this one.
the window of opportunity will most likely be after the elections
and before he leaves office
This way, he won't further harm McCain's chances
And the new President will repeat something along the lines of "We
shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're there it would be irresonsible
to leave"
Right after the last trip to the Middle East (in March, I believe), foreign papers were saying that an attack was expected late in Bush's presidency, after the elections. There was even an article out of one of the mideast papers saying that Saudi Arabia had approved a plan to deal with nuclear fallout in case of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The other possibility to consider is that, in the run-up to the elections, it looks like McCain doesn't have a chance. Then, Bush attacks before the elections, hoping that McCain will look like the more attractive candidate "now that the country is again at war." They can also use Obama's age against him in that scenario, painting him as "too young and inexperienced" to "lead America" in the "freedom fight." All preposterous, but I could see it happening.
If I were a betting man, I'd say late November. By the way, watch commodities, especially oil, dip hugely in price just before they go in. They will get a bunch of shorts loaded onto oil, then hit Iran and make a huge profit while killing the hated shorts. Don't forget I told you. :)
Our stock and commodities markets are completely manipulated, especially in the short term. Our government certainly can't turn a bad economy into a good one, but it can manipulate stock and commodity prices for a day or a week. The government will use its offshore "black helicopter" front companies to go way short on oil, encouraging a slew of short sellers to jump on board. Then, when they hit Iran, oil will of course go completely the other way.
That's called a "short squeeze" and they do it all of the time. Greenspan used to come out and say a bunch of somber things about a stock or a sector, lure the short sellers in, and then let loose the helicopters to blow them out, making a huge profit in the meantime. There's no doubt that they will take advantage of another adventure in the sand to make some billions off oil - and at the expense of honest traders that are reading the charts and don't see the manipulation coming.
If you want to know when the attack is coming, look for a significant drop in commodities - 15-20% at least. Then, you'll know it's about to happen.
Before the Iraq war, the administration was careful to observe legal form (such as it is observed these days), obtaining congressional approval, framing the action in terms of UN resolutions, making a case for invasion before the UN and the public, issuing an ultimatum, and openly declaring hostile intent on the basis of these legalities.
No such political preparation has been done with regard to Iran. Barring a serious incident clearly implicating Iran (and the Iranians are unlikely to precipitate such an incident), no action could be launched in the remaining months of the Bush administration.
Two other reasons an invasion is unlikely in the near term: limited resources and Russia.
The situation is similar to the Iraqi situation left unresolved by GHW Bush in 1993. After the first Iraq war, some argued for the invasion of Iraq and the dethronement of Saddam Hussein. The elder Bush, counseled by Brent Snowcroft and Colin Powell, chose to withdraw. Yet talk persisted throughout the Clinton administration of the need to depose Saddam Hussein. Bush junior stated his intent to depose Hussein and carried this out.
Likewise, Iran is clearly a target, but is, for the moment, an unrealistic target. Bush junior is leaving Iran on the table for a later war party to handle.
But as Ron Paul himself has stated, we are setting up a Gulf of Tonkin in the Straights of Hormuz.
We have already declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and further, there is much agitating about Iranian training and supplying of Iraqi insurgents. A cross-border missile strike, a boat incident in the straights, etc... any one of which could precipitate an escalation.
I understand the massive amounts of resistance - but the administration's legal philosophy is one of preemption, unilateralism and massively expanded presidential prerogative. They would even try to stretch the original AUMF to cover an attack on Iran - hell, they used that excuse to justify massive NSA surveillance inside the U.S. at one time. The Neo-cons must know they are on the way out the door so if they want to do what they have always wanted to do - it is now or never.
I hope it doesnt happen. But if it did, it would be consistent with this administration's method of operation from day one. And for that reason, it would not be surprising to me.
"The truth is treason in the empire of lies." Dr. Ron Paul, Preface, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. x
I do think the neocons will go for this conflict, but they don't have the political cover at this time. It isn't really now or never--they waited out the Clinton administration to go after Iraq, so they are perfectly capable of waiting out an Obama administration to go after Iran. The public mood is against war at the moment, so they will use the waiting period to rebuild their base and launch an attack on Iran from a position of strength.
My conspiratorial interpretation is that the CFR puts forward alternately hard and soft approaches to the central issue of oil geopolitics: Carter (soft), Reagan/Bush (hard), Clinton (soft), Bush Jr (hard), Obama (soft). After Obama we will likely be offered Jeb Bush who will be tasked with taking down Iran. All speculation, of course.
believe it or not, all governments care about public opinion. that's the reason they had to lie so much to get this war going in the first place. from what i read, the general consensus at this point is that more than half the population is opposed to the current war. starting another war would surely meet with popular outrage with unpredictable consequences. they'll keep pushing for it but i doubt that people will buy it. not in the short term at least.
In context: Bush is speaking to an Isreali news channel in connection with Isreal's 60th anniversary celebration so i suppose he is just re-assuring them of his firm committment to all things Isreal. As far as an attack before he leaves - I couldn't imagine it. But he is on track to leave two wars to his succesor, whats another one? Aint like he is paying for it or his kids will die in it. Plus, there are some in his administration who have been salivating for a chance like this for a long time. I wouldnt be shocked if it did happen.
"The truth is treason in the empire of lies." Dr. Ron Paul, Preface, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. x
you should also take into account the amount of visible opposition to the war and the administration. compare what was said in the open leading up to the iraq war and what is said now. take some of Keith Olbermann's special comments on MSNBC as an example. this goes out to the general public. take the tens of millions of dollars donated by common people to Ron Paul's candidacy. none of this is lost on the current powers that be.
we agree that it does look like a war with iran is desirable by the administration and they are doing their best to push for it. but. what i'm trying to say is that while they're selling it, nobody's buying, and they're well aware of that. since they're aware of the opposition, i doubt that this war will be started.
Subscribe to this thread
Meeting this week in Chantilly, Virginia.
And I'm sure this question is on the agenda, among many others.
What's best for the world ruling elites will be the choice.
I think that the neo-cons are just looking for some sort of excuse to expand this war. Expansion of this war is the best chance for the election of John McCain--that's obvious. However, a Democrat victory would threaten a number of corporate and bureacratic interests.
I really fear this administration would stage such an action, and I pray that I am wrong on this one.
the window of opportunity will most likely be after the elections
and before he leaves office
This way, he won't further harm McCain's chances
And the new President will repeat something along the lines of "We
shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're there it would be irresonsible
to leave"
Right after the last trip to the Middle East (in March, I believe), foreign papers were saying that an attack was expected late in Bush's presidency, after the elections. There was even an article out of one of the mideast papers saying that Saudi Arabia had approved a plan to deal with nuclear fallout in case of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The other possibility to consider is that, in the run-up to the elections, it looks like McCain doesn't have a chance. Then, Bush attacks before the elections, hoping that McCain will look like the more attractive candidate "now that the country is again at war." They can also use Obama's age against him in that scenario, painting him as "too young and inexperienced" to "lead America" in the "freedom fight." All preposterous, but I could see it happening.
If I were a betting man, I'd say late November. By the way, watch commodities, especially oil, dip hugely in price just before they go in. They will get a bunch of shorts loaded onto oil, then hit Iran and make a huge profit while killing the hated shorts. Don't forget I told you. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
to have my man stationed there make the proper preparations, would you clarify as to why oil will drop in price if Iran is attacked.
Our stock and commodities markets are completely manipulated, especially in the short term. Our government certainly can't turn a bad economy into a good one, but it can manipulate stock and commodity prices for a day or a week. The government will use its offshore "black helicopter" front companies to go way short on oil, encouraging a slew of short sellers to jump on board. Then, when they hit Iran, oil will of course go completely the other way.
That's called a "short squeeze" and they do it all of the time. Greenspan used to come out and say a bunch of somber things about a stock or a sector, lure the short sellers in, and then let loose the helicopters to blow them out, making a huge profit in the meantime. There's no doubt that they will take advantage of another adventure in the sand to make some billions off oil - and at the expense of honest traders that are reading the charts and don't see the manipulation coming.
If you want to know when the attack is coming, look for a significant drop in commodities - 15-20% at least. Then, you'll know it's about to happen.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
to buy
Before the Iraq war, the administration was careful to observe legal form (such as it is observed these days), obtaining congressional approval, framing the action in terms of UN resolutions, making a case for invasion before the UN and the public, issuing an ultimatum, and openly declaring hostile intent on the basis of these legalities.
No such political preparation has been done with regard to Iran. Barring a serious incident clearly implicating Iran (and the Iranians are unlikely to precipitate such an incident), no action could be launched in the remaining months of the Bush administration.
Two other reasons an invasion is unlikely in the near term: limited resources and Russia.
The situation is similar to the Iraqi situation left unresolved by GHW Bush in 1993. After the first Iraq war, some argued for the invasion of Iraq and the dethronement of Saddam Hussein. The elder Bush, counseled by Brent Snowcroft and Colin Powell, chose to withdraw. Yet talk persisted throughout the Clinton administration of the need to depose Saddam Hussein. Bush junior stated his intent to depose Hussein and carried this out.
Likewise, Iran is clearly a target, but is, for the moment, an unrealistic target. Bush junior is leaving Iran on the table for a later war party to handle.
But as Ron Paul himself has stated, we are setting up a Gulf of Tonkin in the Straights of Hormuz.
We have already declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and further, there is much agitating about Iranian training and supplying of Iraqi insurgents. A cross-border missile strike, a boat incident in the straights, etc... any one of which could precipitate an escalation.
I understand the massive amounts of resistance - but the administration's legal philosophy is one of preemption, unilateralism and massively expanded presidential prerogative. They would even try to stretch the original AUMF to cover an attack on Iran - hell, they used that excuse to justify massive NSA surveillance inside the U.S. at one time. The Neo-cons must know they are on the way out the door so if they want to do what they have always wanted to do - it is now or never.
I hope it doesnt happen. But if it did, it would be consistent with this administration's method of operation from day one. And for that reason, it would not be surprising to me.
"The truth is treason in the empire of lies." Dr. Ron Paul, Preface, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. x
I do think the neocons will go for this conflict, but they don't have the political cover at this time. It isn't really now or never--they waited out the Clinton administration to go after Iraq, so they are perfectly capable of waiting out an Obama administration to go after Iran. The public mood is against war at the moment, so they will use the waiting period to rebuild their base and launch an attack on Iran from a position of strength.
My conspiratorial interpretation is that the CFR puts forward alternately hard and soft approaches to the central issue of oil geopolitics: Carter (soft), Reagan/Bush (hard), Clinton (soft), Bush Jr (hard), Obama (soft). After Obama we will likely be offered Jeb Bush who will be tasked with taking down Iran. All speculation, of course.
believe it or not, all governments care about public opinion. that's the reason they had to lie so much to get this war going in the first place. from what i read, the general consensus at this point is that more than half the population is opposed to the current war. starting another war would surely meet with popular outrage with unpredictable consequences. they'll keep pushing for it but i doubt that people will buy it. not in the short term at least.
I do not buy that the Neo-con thing give much of a rats patooty what the public opinion is at this point.
I would love to lose the bet, but I believe we will see another "false flag" before they leave office, giving the go -to go into Iran.
Whomever is in office next will be stuck with a mess, bigger than we got right now.
And yup, I hope to god Im wrong
The rhetoric on Iran is big right now.
It would appear that Mr Bush is excessively toting the dangers of Iran right now. The drumbeat gets louder and louder...
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_calls_Iran_single_biggest_thre_0512200...
In context: Bush is speaking to an Isreali news channel in connection with Isreal's 60th anniversary celebration so i suppose he is just re-assuring them of his firm committment to all things Isreal. As far as an attack before he leaves - I couldn't imagine it. But he is on track to leave two wars to his succesor, whats another one? Aint like he is paying for it or his kids will die in it. Plus, there are some in his administration who have been salivating for a chance like this for a long time. I wouldnt be shocked if it did happen.
"The truth is treason in the empire of lies." Dr. Ron Paul, Preface, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. x
you should also take into account the amount of visible opposition to the war and the administration. compare what was said in the open leading up to the iraq war and what is said now. take some of Keith Olbermann's special comments on MSNBC as an example. this goes out to the general public. take the tens of millions of dollars donated by common people to Ron Paul's candidacy. none of this is lost on the current powers that be.
we agree that it does look like a war with iran is desirable by the administration and they are doing their best to push for it. but. what i'm trying to say is that while they're selling it, nobody's buying, and they're well aware of that. since they're aware of the opposition, i doubt that this war will be started.