Military strike on Iran

KIWIKARLOS · 18 April 2008

that reminds me of this native american saying i read the other day it was along the lines of

" A man can not own the air we breath any more than he can own the land we live on"

Seemed very profound and made me think just because i live in a country what makes me OWN the country or any part of it. Generations before walked my footsteps and generations after will walk the same path. Oil made over 500 millions years we claim as ours.

It just makes the whole idea of ownership of anything seem rediculous because when it comes down to it we dont really own anything. You may have a piece of paper saying you own a piece of land but what truely makes it yours ?

There for how can i not share the resources of my country or sell them at profit ?

In jeruselum Muslims, jews and christians lived in harmony for centuries I have seen shows with israeli grandparents saying how they used to leave their kids with their palestinian friends to baby sit.

Many cultures had ways of living that worked well as mixed societies and worked with the environment its no secret we just seem to have forgotten.

Santob · 18 April 2008

KIWIKARLOS said:
OIL

our entire way of life is based on CHEAP abundant energy.

The huge increase in living standards from the 19 century is based on this and its coming to an end.

I'll repeat my earlier post

santob said:
You've asserted that the US is stealing oil, so howcome oil is getting more expensive and the US economy is tanking?

What you're saying is, that if the US had not invaded Iraq, oil would have increased at an even greater rate. Given that Iraq has some of the worlds largest remaining oil reserves, how would have leaving Iraq alone, NOT have regulated oil prices on its own?

metric · 18 April 2008

like iraq was, now iran is talking about selling oil in euros NOT us dollars. no more swapping paper for oil for the us. man, thats gotta hurt!!

Santob · 18 April 2008

I'll repeat my earlier opinion, that the invasion of Iraq had little or nothing to do with oil, weapons, terrorism or getting rid of Saddam. It was daylight robbery of the American peoples money, by a ruling elite (assisted by their puppets in the administration), to protect their assets from the demise of the American economy.

metric · 18 April 2008

interesting. ive read simmilar before. i agree there is a non elected ruling elite. i agree the us (so far) middle class is getting robbed, and 'elected' politicians are puppets of the elite.

please expand.

juw177 · 18 April 2008

metric said:
interesting. ive read simmilar before. i agree there is a non elected ruling elite. i agree the us (so far) middle class is getting robbed, and 'elected' politicians are puppets of the elite.

please expand.

You only need to look at what Ben Bernanke and his banker friends are doing right now. The illegal Bear Sterns bail out is a good start.

KIWIKARLOS · 18 April 2008

Santob said:
I'll repeat my earlier opinion, that the invasion of Iraq had little or nothing to do with oil, weapons, terrorism or getting rid of Saddam. It was daylight robbery of the American peoples money, by a ruling elite (assisted by their puppets in the administration), to protect their assets from the demise of the American economy.

Interesting idea

How would invading Iraq protect their assets though? I though that it wouldn't really matter, if their assets are US based or in US dollars they would loose anyway right?

Maybe if their interests were in US oil companies i could see it, Iraq just released their fields up for international oil companies and we all know the US will prob get a large share of the reserves. We know Bush has huge oil interests and Cheny and rumsfield are into the military industry heavily (haliburton etc) so that would make sense and the democrats don't really have as much in oil etc.

I think the republicans are hoping that Obama and clinton destroy each others hope at a victory then swing in to pick up the pieces and role on with the master plan.

One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.

Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it. Espiecially resource companies.

I like what the south americans are doing In political term sto I feel that the system with 4 year terms and two identical parties with slightly different agendas isn't working. we end up with polies who won't make the big painful decisions that are neccessary because they are scared of getting voted out next round. I personally think longer terms would be beneficial in getting real gains in society and we need to encourage more political parties and ideals to get more innovation

KIWIKARLOS · 18 April 2008

Also the prob with US is you dont have to vote and to become a president requires hundreds of millions of dollars.

Australia works well I think we all speak our mind at voting time.

The US citizens have really been sitting back let their country go downhill without demanding change although i think the lack of independant media prob has alot to do with that.

robert toms · 18 April 2008

As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
If they do not have dangers and enemies,conspiracy theories ,and the like the upkeep of this massive military cannot be justified....but we lurch from one threat to another....domino theories,communist ambitions.WMD's in Iraq,terrorists are everywhere,Iran nuclear,North Korea to attack US etc etc etc.
The president is called the Commander in chief...Hollywood glorifies the military and the military life....and if they lose Rambo wins on the screen!
And they cannot even provide universal healthcare for their people.
Their economic and military policies are very closley linked.

Sean K · 18 April 2008

robert toms said:
As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
If they do not have dangers and enemies,conspiracy theories ,and the like the upkeep of this massive military cannot be justified....but we lurch from one threat to another....domino theories,communist ambitions.WMD's in Iraq,terrorists are everywhere,Iran nuclear,North Korea to attack US etc etc etc.
The president is called the Commander in chief...Hollywood glorifies the military and the military life....and if they lose Rambo wins on the screen!
And they cannot even provide universal healthcare for their people.
Their economic and military policies are very closley linked.

Nice perspective RT, and probably on the mark to a large degree.

Although, not sure if BB should be a supporting argument.

Santob · 18 April 2008

KIWIKARLOS said:
Interesting idea

How would invading Iraq protect their assets though? I though that it wouldn't really matter, if their assets are US based or in US dollars they would loose anyway right?

It wasn't the invasion of Iraq that protected their assets, it was the invasion full stop. They could've invaded Pakistan if they really wanted to crack down on terrorism. What declaring an unending war on terrorism allows is to bankroll any number of "classified in the name of nationa lsecurity" projects, like i said before, if you question it - you're a terrorist sympathiser.

As for the US based assets, enough of *any* currency can still live you a good life, look at Zimbabwe for instance, Mugabe isn't exactly living a subsistence lifestyle now is he?

Maybe if their interests were in US oil companies i could see it, Iraq just released their fields up for international oil companies and we all know the US will prob get a large share of the reserves. We know Bush has huge oil interests and Cheny and rumsfield are into the military industry heavily (haliburton etc) so that would make sense and the democrats don't really have as much in oil etc.

The pefect environment to offer no-bid contracts to your pals. By the way, how good are you and your mates at hiding cash in your pockets?

Are missing U.S. billions now funding Iraqi insurgents?
Published: February 7, 2007

WASHINGTON: A House committee report has questioned whether some of the billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq after the American invasion ”” mostly in huge, shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills ”” might have ended up with the insurgent groups now battling American troops.
International Herald Tribune

See that kind of $12 Billion dollar stuff-up has nothing to do with Oil, Iraq, Saddam or Terrorism.

I think the republicans are hoping that Obama and clinton destroy each others hope at a victory then swing in to pick up the pieces and role on with the master plan.

And that sort of bickering again plays into the "treat the public as ignorant fools". Jon Stewart despite, being a political comedian described it best when he said such partisan hackery only hurts America.

One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.

Precisely, and what does any good CEO of a failing company do? put the assets into the wifes name.

Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it. Espiecially resource companies.

I like what the south americans are doing In political term sto I feel that the system with 4 year terms and two identical parties with slightly different agendas isn't working. we end up with polies who won't make the big painful decisions that are neccessary because they are scared of getting voted out next round. I personally think longer terms would be beneficial in getting real gains in society and we need to encourage more political parties and ideals to get more innovation

Now thats a whole other discussion.

Santob · 18 April 2008

robert toms said:
As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
If they do not have dangers and enemies,conspiracy theories ,and the like the upkeep of this massive military cannot be justified....but we lurch from one threat to another....domino theories,communist ambitions.WMD's in Iraq,terrorists are everywhere,Iran nuclear,North Korea to attack US etc etc etc.
The president is called the Commander in chief...Hollywood glorifies the military and the military life....and if they lose Rambo wins on the screen!
And they cannot even provide universal healthcare for their people.
Their economic and military policies are very closley linked.

I much preferred it when hollywood considered Asteroids as the greatest threat to their lifestyles.

KIWIKARLOS · 18 April 2008

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19764.htm

A good article on energy security and the changing world.
Shows that China and US are really going head on each other to gain control of resources.

Iran has 55% of world gas supplies! Russia in good shape for the next 200 years. As is oz

Also another reason why I only invest in energy at the moment and foreseable future.

Anyone know any good companies to get exposure to Aust NW gas shelf or the new PNG / QLD emerging gas infrastructure. I know of QGC which have been going from strength to strength but missed the big gains.

Seems its the big boys getting into PNG Exxon etc but NW shelf is the one im really interested in.

Garpal Gumnut · 18 April 2008

jman2007 said:
Well yes,

And don't forget to add in the fantatical support that the Mullahs would whip up. At the end of the day, no-one should forget that no matter how unpopular a particular regime may be, people will still gives their lives to defend every square millimeter of their homeland in the name of nationalism. Their airforce is certainly not the worst either.

When I was in Iran, I got a combination Turkish/Iranian massage from none other than an Iranian airforce pilot, he was about the size of a anti-tank barrier. By the time he'd finsihed with me, I felt like I'd been trampled by a pack of furious gorillas, and he was being gentle .

I fail to see what effect bombing Iran would have. Many of their key technologies are spread all over the country, some in very well protected underground bunkers. I think with Iran even hinting of threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the US would be quaking at their knees .

That's Irans trump card .

jman

The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.

Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.

Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them.

gg

Santob · 18 April 2008

Garpal Gumnut said:
The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.

Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.

Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them.

gg

So hang on, satellites and star wars, mad cronies, nuclear arms and jollies from threats to all and sundry..who are you arguing for and against here?

You are with us or against us right?

disarray · 18 April 2008

metric said:
israel has illegal nukes. we dont see the us even talking about that!!! it must be because of israels great human rights record

israel has a small problem of millions of arabs who want to kill them and who have invaded their country several times.

metric said:
the us will do what israel tells it. either bomb iran or we (israel) will. its really about oil

thats a bit contradictory. they will do it for oil, or they will do it because israel tells them to do it. two different masters at play there.

wayneL said:
We're going to kill 100's of 1000's of men women and children, so we can live frivolous lives filled by buying cheap Chinese tat? There is something amiss in our value system if that is the case!

yeah our value system is pretty bad at the moment. the baby boomers killed god so theres a big hole where our society's spirituality should be. i've seen several videos of angry black people ranting about how white people have no soul, maybe they have a point.

juw177 said:
Do people still think that corporations and corporate funded governments care about human lives in non western countries?

its common knowledge that they don't even care about their own people. corporations care for profit first and foremost. and secondmost.

KIWIKARLOS said:
One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.

Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it.

god yes. at the multinational level meaningful shareholders aren't people like us anyway, its banks and insurance companies and our superannuation money which is being used for private ends.

wayneL · 18 April 2008

Garpal Gumnut said:
Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them.

gg

I'm just wondering who qualifies as the maddest....

jman2007 · 18 April 2008

Garpal Gumnut said:
The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.

Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.

Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them.

gg

Well it comes down to who is madder than who?...Iran or the US?

No, bombing the crap out of them not an option, not even remotely:

1.) US bombs the crap out of Iranian suspected nuclear sites.

2.) Iran retaliates by firing missiles into Israel.

3.) Israel retaliates by bombing Iranian military installations.

4.) Syria attacks the Golan heights, and Hezbollah attack Israel from Lebanon.

5.) Turkey sends army units to its border with Syria.

You get the idea. WWIII in an instant.

And factor in a world oil supply with the Straight of Hormuz closed. Say goodbye to your oil-dependent economy.

jman

So_Cynical · 19 April 2008

jman2007 said:
Well it comes down to who is madder than who?...Iran or the US?

No, bombing the crap out of them not an option, not even remotely:

1.) US bombs the crap out of Iranian suspected nuclear sites.

2.) Iran retaliates by firing missiles into Israel.

3.) Israel retaliates by bombing Iranian military installations.

4.) Syria attacks the Golan heights, and Hezbollah attack Israel from Lebanon.

5.) Turkey sends army units to its border with Syria.

You get the idea. WWIII in an instant.

And factor in a world oil supply with the Straight of Hormuz closed. Say goodbye to your oil-dependent economy.

jman

Thanks for getting this thread back on Topic....however ill have to disagree with your assumptions.

Israel will be the country doing the bombing...as Israel is the only country that could do it with any
legitimacy...The Iranian Govt will know its coming, as will the US...the US will have 2 carrier Groups
near by to lend assistance to Israel.

When the inevitable retaliation happens, most of the Iranian Air force and missile sites and military
infrastructure etc will be destroyed in a couple of days....thus leaving Iran unable to do pretty
much anything of significance.

It will all be over in a week or less...the Syrians wont do anything as theres just no upside for them.

jman2007 · 19 April 2008

So_Cynical said:
Thanks for getting this thread back on Topic....however ill have to disagree with your assumptions.

Israel will be the country doing the bombing...as Israel is the only country that could do it with any
legitimacy...The Iranian Govt will know its coming, as will the US...the US will have 2 carrier Groups
near by to lend assistance to Israel.

When the inevitable retaliation happens, most of the Iranian Air force and missile sites and military
infrastructure etc will be destroyed in a couple of days....thus leaving Iran unable to do pretty
much anything of significance.

It will all be over in a week or less...the Syrians wont do anything as theres just no upside for them.

I certainly wouldn't underestimate the long arm of Iran, or their capabilities.

Hezbollah are basically a proxy Iranian presence in Lebanon. Remember during the recent conflict with Israel, they were able to unleash barrages of rockets into Israel seemingly at will, with Israel unable to stop them or locate their firing positions quickly enough.

The Iranians aren't stupid, and I doubt the US or Israel has adequate intelligence to pinpoint every single military target in the country simultaneously, or within a few days. Like their "nuclear" technology, it will be distributed right across their vast country, much of it out of sight.

The Iranians certainly wont be the first one's to kick this off, but I'm sure they'll have a well thought out response if it comes to this. Remember the "west" wont be facing a half-assed, ill-equipped rabble this time, but a highly motivated and determined force, with a significant bargaining chip up their sleeve.

Syria are still smarting after losing the Golan heights to Israel decades ago, technically the part under Israeli control still belongs to Syria. With Israel's attention diverted elsewhere, and a potentially wideneing regional conflict, I admit a land-grab would be unlikely...but hey, why the hell not? Emotions run high in this part of the world.

jman

Military strike on Iran

Military strike on Iran?

Yes

No

KIWIKARLOS

Santob

metric

Santob

metric

juw177

KIWIKARLOS

KIWIKARLOS

robert toms

Sean K

Moderator

Santob

Santob

KIWIKARLOS

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Santob

disarray

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

jman2007

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

jman2007

Similar threads

Military strike on Iran

Military strike on Iran?

Yes

No

Moderator

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

The Contrarian Averager

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency