RUMBLINGS OF WAR

I feel like the robot in LOST IN SPACE, that flailed his limbs about and shouted, “DANGER DANGER.”  The reason is that I have been reading about aggressive rumblings from the Bush Administration.  There are several articles recently proclaiming that Bush, emulating Julius Caesar, is preparing for another war.  Just an hour ago I read the following:

“Seymour Hersh, writing in the latest New Yorker magazine, reports that American soldiers have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran. The missions have been underway for several months, in preparation for potential U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.”

“Hersh says that the operations have been authorized by the president with little or no congressional oversight.”

We know that the neo-conservative agenda is to rule the world and seize the major oil reserves. That is fact, NOT fantasy.
  We know that Bush when he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also inclded Iran in his war plans.  He has come back to that strategy.  You can fully expect the following to occur:  Bush will declare some imminent danger to the U.S.. Iran has “intentions” to do something very bad to us, and he will have to take preemptive action to save us from this terrible danger.
Bush will again talk to God, who will assure him that Muslims are infidels, and that a crusade is needed.  Bush, or Condi, or Rumsfeld will find that some Iranian leader is ‘EVIL”, with dastardly plans for humanity and needs application of cruise missles, tanks, bombs, grenades and about 200,000 American troops.  Bush has already made Congress and extension of the oval office, and is able through his corporate friends and sycophants to override any criticism.  In fact, the idea that criticism is treason will again be broached.  Citizens will be arrested without warrant, phones tapped, homes search, and held incommunicado simply because Bush feels that he now has a mandate to do anything he damn well pleases. ANYTHING. Constitution be damned or changed at will.
You can expect his preacher friends to begin grooming him for sainthood with daily praises. YOu can fully expect him to change this democracy into a fascist theocracy. 

30 thoughts on “RUMBLINGS OF WAR

  1. This strikes me as a bit rash.  The US has yet to completely resolve the hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Even the most hawkish must realize that fighting three seperate contemporaneous campaigns would over extend even the United State’s substantial military might.  The US is a super power, but it isn’t omnipotent.  Even if Iraq isn’t another Vietnam, which it might very well be, starting another war is just asking for an unwinnable conflict.

  2. I’m crossposting here, but the post really belongs in this thread…

    From the NY Times: Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy

    Here are some choice quotes.  I’ve added some comments here and there (slightly edited from the first time I posted it, re-posted for convenience)…

    President Bush said the public’s decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

    “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections,

  3. He may not make it a preemptive war. I read an article that said Wolfowitz was trying to find a way to detonate a small nuclear device here in Houston to kickstart the patriotism needed for such a massive attack.

    That’s not to say I believed it, but I wouldn’t but anything past this administration now.

  4. Spocko, I loved seeing pics like that back in early 2000. You don’t see pics like that anymore…

    Now you just see pics like this:

  5. They may not need to fight a “Third” war.

    The Iraqi elections in two weeks may give the [mis]Administration the reasoning (flawed as it is) to invade Iran.

    They will “determine” that Iran meddled in the elections, that they had forces cross over to “help” Iraqi Shia vote… blahblahblah

    Then the EU negotiations over Iran’s nukes will fall down and go splat again…

    THEN Bush, in order to protect our troops from a preemptive Iranian nuclear strike will pre-preemptively invade Iran.

    Farfetched… four years ago I would have agreed.. now only Eris knows…

    fnord

  6. “Seymour Hersh, writing in the latest New Yorker magazine, reports that American soldiers have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran. The missions have been underway for several months, in preparation for potential U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

  7. There are many who claim that 9/11 couldn’t have happened without some government complacency.  It is starnge that the Admin fought so hard to keep any kind of independent investigation from happening regarding 9/11.  It is also interesting to note that The Project for the New American Century, whose members are some of the most influential people in the Admin, mentioned the need for a “new Pearl Harbor” to galvanize the public.

    According to the PNAC report, “The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.” To preserve this “American peace” through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order “must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence.” The report struck a prescient note when it observed that “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    – source Disinfopedia

      It is actually on page 63 and says: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

      Also, CNN reported yesterday, that the Pentagon tried to deny Hersh’s report as poor journalism.

  8. Hmmmm… maybe in Dave’s pic, Bush had run out of toilet paper.  Looks like he is trying to figure out where to shove it.  I have a few ideas. wink

  9. He may not make it a preemptive war. I read an article that said Wolfowitz was trying to find a way to detonate a small nuclear device here in Houston to kickstart the patriotism needed for such a massive attack.

    That’s not to say I believed it, but I wouldn’t but anything past this administration now.

    Chill, people. I am certain that Bush would like to invade Iran. Thats the modus operandi he believes in. But it ain’t likely AT ALL.

    1) Even though they were hell-bent on invading Iraq from the start, they took, what, 2 years to prepare and ‘fertilize the ground’ for it.

    What they are doing now is send up trial balloons.

    What do you do with trial balloons? You shoot ‘em down. More forcefully than before Iraq, because we know whats coming if we let em have their way.

    2) US troops ain’t infinite, and even Rumsfeld (if not all in the Bush administration) has noticed by now. The US CANNOT invade Iran. Best they could do is hold some major pockets. The rest – not even a pretense like in parts of Iraq.

    Now, there won’t be an invasion of Iran anytime soon. Military strikes (airstrikes, special forces, with or without Israel) though…

    NOW you’re talking a possible reality.

  10. BTW – I originally chose that quote of Bachalon because I think thats pretty much the conspiracy theory approach.

    I don’t believe in secret conspiracies of that kind. The real conspiracies can be read about in the news and listening to politicians when they preach to the party faithful. If you listen closely, that will tell you 90% of what is going on. The really secret moves are rarely more than a tiny part.

  11. Even if Iraq isn’t another Vietnam, which it might very well be, starting another war is just asking for an unwinnable conflict.

    I really don’t know that winning the conflict is the goal of this war (or possibly wars).

  12. Terroran,

    You have a point there, if I remember correctly the US tends to vote Republican during war time (if I remember correctly of the 11 “war presidents” in the 20th and 21st centuries, only 4 were Democrats: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and they all have acronyms as monikers).  Such being the case, it would likely be in the Republican’s interest to keep the US at a constant state of low level conflict to drum up support.  I mean consider what happened when G-dubs dad managed to resolve a war in the middle-east, he didn’t even get voted in for a second term.  I guess if the Republicans must be worried about what will happen if the conflict in the middle-east is ever resolved.  I mean what else drives conservative ideology other than fear (and perhaps greed).

  13. Yeah, it seems to ring true.

    This may not be a very tasteful analogy, but having your state at war is kind of like having your team in the playoffs. Even if you don’t watch the game(or care for the sport), you still cheer for the team, hoping they will bring home victory.

    Then I guess when you think about it, sports have always kind of resembled some sort of archaic miniwar. Two teams fighting head to head in conquest of the other, victor takes all (just instead of pillaging and raping you get a cup).

  14. I believe the covert operations taking place in Iran are no different than the covert operations we are conducting in many other countries.  They are merely gathering intelligence and identifying targets.

    Ingolfson’s comments seem on the mark to me.  The administration is flying this up the flagpole to see who will salute.  Now, if Iran continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs and refuse to negotiate with the EU, then we will probably see surgical strikes.

    In effect. this will decimate the Iranian forces and raise hostilities in the Middle East but it will have eliminated the possibility of any large scale attack from Iran.  The downside is the US will be involved in major combat operations in the Middle East so far into the future that fossil fuels will have been depleted.

  15. In effect. this will decimate the Iranian forces and raise hostilities in the Middle East but it will have eliminated the possibility of any large scale attack from Iran.

    Not knowing what the military capabilities of Iran are, I don’t know how effective “surgical strikes” could be. US forces would almost have to redeploy towards the Iraq/Iranian border to meet a potential retaliatory attack or infiltration, but that would also mean fewer troops to deal with the insurgency and an even larger logistics train to attack. It seems to me that current US combat forces are fully engaged in Iraq and even a credible threat of attack from Iran or somewhere else could make things really interesting.

    And who knows what creative ways the Mullahs have concocted to answer any US action…

    The downside is the US will be involved in major combat operations in the Middle East so far into the future that fossil fuels will have been depleted.

    If the US can sustain it and assuming that everybody else would only stand by to watch. There are so many conceivable unintended consequences…

  16. I think the only thing not mentioned so far is the manning level of the military. Morale as well. As more people question the validity of Iraq, how many youngsters will sign up should Iran become another war of choice. Does a man who personally ran from the draft have the balls to invoke one?

  17. Some points to make.

    1) Benefits not morality
    With regards to conduct of international/foreign affairs, the focus should be benefits accrued to the home nation rather than morality per se. Or so as I have been told when talking to this person who among other things works for the government with regards to international affairs and have been to Baghdad.

    Of course one could debate the benefits of a particular action and that benefits can be defined widely and be viewed in both long and short term.
    A) “Survival” / Power: State’s position internationally
    B) Economic
    C) “Election”: Catering to supporters

    2) “Rule the world” + “Seize Oil”
    I do not think there is anything wrong with adopting the above policy except perhaps phrase it differently. If one does not do so one may not be doing their job.

    A) “Rule the world”
    Ultimately conduct of international affairs is all about establising one’s position in the world. Those at the bottom will want to climb and those on top will want to remain. And of course by ruling the world I do not mean those silly cartoon bad guys menacing rubbing their hands together. But rather it means securing trade interests overseas, drawing in investment, protecting investments etc.

    Think of it as a company. As the CEO of the company their job is to ensure that the company keeps its position in the market. And the ways to keep their position or improve could be through direct competition, co-operation or perhaps even hostile takeovers.

    B) Seize Oil
    This could be explained through economic or survival interests. Oil is essential to the lubricating of the economy and without it the economy will grind to a halt or more realistically, it would increase the cost of business. For example, if there is only one source of clean water in the whole world and the country controlling it decides not to export to the country, it would be logical for that nation to attempt to seize.

    But often one has to plan strategically in advance to secure the vital materials. For example, China (which according to estimates will consume as much oil as US by 2020-5) is currently securing oil fields across the world such as Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, also in the purchase of Canadian company Noranda to obtain the oil sands in Canada and there is talk of purchasing US energy firm Unocol. Internationally, China would veto any strongly worded measures in the UN directed against Sudan or Iran.

    The difference is that at this moment US have the military capability to either seize the oil or to be more precise prop up regimes favourable to US while China have to rely on paying above the market rate to obtain these oil fields.

    C) Human Rights
    The interesting bit at least to me with regards to US policy is its interaction with human rights. For example, if the US merely wanted to secure oil, they could simply drop the sanctions and cut a deal with Saddam, deal directly with Sudan, etc. But that would be in direct contravention of its so called human rights policy. At least with nations such as China one can make the very valid argument that trade with the country improves the lives of the people there and in the long run human rights would improve as a result. But such an argument is difficult to make with regards to oil investments.

    So what do you do when you want something that is beneficial and crucial but there are constraints to dealing with the person who holds it. One simply remove that person from the equation.

    Ultimately, I would question whether human rights actually play a part in US foreign policy or whether it merely operates as a mask for its actions or is invoked for supporters of the party or perhaps adopting it would result obtaining a better result. I should make one final point that the mere fact that a policy is a “me first” or one that is lead by benefits does not mean everyone else would suffer for in many cases benefits are not a zero or negative sum game.

  18. You sum up the main talking points of the Wolfowitz Doctrine (which is basically world domination in a post-cold war environ). But it is very much a “me first” attitude. There is no thought given to benefits for others, particularly if they fail to share our values/culture.

    This approach has been attempted several times in the past, almost always with fantastic short term gains. Always with long term failure.

    Countries can be very vindictive when reacting to perceived wrongs. All Europe has to do (particularly Russia) is cash out the dollar in favor of another currency and we’re screwed. They can’t do it yet, but who’s to say in 10 years oil can’t be traded in the euro?

    My point is that ultra-aggression, especially when the government committing it is percieved as arrogant and hypocritical, is almost always met with a backlash equal in magnitude. We may attempt to jockey for position in a world with dwindling resources but are our gains going to be greater than our vulnerabilities?

  19. I’ve not yet read Sy Hirsch’s piece in the New Yorker. Given the fact that he broke the My Lai story, and was pivotal in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal being reported, I wouldn’t dismiss his claims out-of-hand. I would guess that any informers he may have on this story might want to remain anonymous. Granted, an administration exacting revenge on anyone informing the media on it’s questionable, covert activities seems far fetched……oh, wait……

  20. After the rest of the rationales for Bush’s war crumbled, I have heard quite a few pro-war types use the “strategic oil reserves” argument for the war.  What people don’t realize is that oil-based economies are on the way out.  Type in “oil peak” on a search engine and read the articles.  Oil demand has now surpassed oil production and even opening up areas like ANWR won’t change that.  Wolfie and his cronies might even be aware of it and not care because they won’t be around to have to clean up the mess.  “What goes up…”

  21. Going by this documented timeline Id say involvment of George Dubya Christ in 9/11 has at least some merit.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

    cant look at the Emperor during his preselected coronation.
    http://airamericaradio.com/layout.asp?baseurl=MikeMalloyShow/1-13-05/MikeMalloy.wma

    Here is a good interview with Seymour Hersh about Dubya.
    http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/replay.html?event_id=170

  22. “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

    So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Inaugural Speech

    But look on the bright side. There is no little black mustache and attempt at world domination masked as ethnic cleansing. It’s only a monkey looking head and a power grab disguised as good old Texas Ranger Christian Values disguised as freedom.

    “May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.” Bush said.

  23. Nm! shut eye  Even my arch-conservative grandfather didn’t vote for this buffoon!

    But look on the bright side. There is no little black mustache and attempt at world domination masked as ethnic cleansing.

      Instead of ethnic cleansing- it’s social cleansing.  You know, we have to get rid of those heathens, pagans, and other non-Christian types.  Also, a little political cleansing- everyone knows that those wacko environmentalists are nothing but long haired godless commies!

  24. It is ironic that Bush used the words Freedom and Liberty over 40 times in his speech at his coronation yesterday. Wouldn’t it be nice if he could apply some of that to his own country, where he arrests people without warrant, reads their mail, taps their phones, holds them without warrant, and holds them without even listing them as being held and without access to any lawyer?  Wouldn’t it be nice if, when he swore to uphold the constitution, agree not to change it at any whim to make it suit his religious beliefs?

  25. Now what’s this nasty little man up to?

    Soften them up Cheney and egg them on.  That’s it.

    Of course no one in the US Admin had anything to do with it.

    Cheney hints to a pre-emptive nuclear strike

    (JTA) – Cheney fears Israel might strike Iran

    Vice President Dick Cheney expressed concern that Israel might strike Iran to take out its incipient nuclear capacity. “If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” Cheney said in an interview aired Thursday on MSNBC. Many have surmised that Israel might contemplate a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear program similar to the Jewish state’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor, but Israeli officials have said nothing to support such speculation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.