Run-Up to Iran War: Track the Indicators

Well, I hate to fuel the fires, but this don't look too good either right about now:

President Bush pulls US forces out of Iceland

Bush reaffirms first-strike policy, calls Iran biggest possible threat

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well, I hate to fuel the fires, but this don't look too good either right about now:

President Bush pulls US forces out of Iceland

This decision is most likely due to budget cuts and utilizing our military fund (and personel) to its fullest advantage. I think Iceland is pretty safe these days.

Besides, wouldn't you agree it's time they arrange their own security? The U.S. will positively protect the country in the event of a threat or if any outside tension starts to brew.

BTW, the redeployment is months away (Sept).

-Gen

From the article:

... but other considerations had weighed more heavily in making the decision to withdraw forces from Iceland, US forces were "stretched" and required elsewhere.

Yeah SG, not till September, but what's this? The government admitting that our forces are "stretched?" And "required elsewhere??"

Awe g, not enough new recruits, huh? But what I'm wondering is where is elsewhere? Iraq? I though we were pulling out of Iraq and there was a turnover to Iraqi police force underway??

Smells to me like we got other plans for these folks.

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by Striker8441

(snip)
Being a former US Marine I have fought for my country, but that does not mean that I like war or cheer war.
(snip)

I know this is OT, but had to comment on this.

You weren't discharged OTH, were you? With the exception of OTH, "Once a Marine, always a Marine".

(No such thing as an 'ex' Marine)

Nope, Honorable which is why I stated Former instead of Ex, since I am no longer active duty I consider myself a former Marine but like a t shirt my wife bought me "Not so Lean, Not so Mean, STILL a US Marine"

Originally posted by chaosrain
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Newcomers:
It's clear that the world is in the process of climbing up Iran's backside about their efforts to develop nuclear technology. What is interesting is that no one cares about NK's efforts in this regard anymore.

Two reasons:
1. North Korea is in the strategic armpit of the world and has no way to get out. They are not a conventional threat, and the only purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter resistance to conventional or non-military actions.
2. They've already got the bomb. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. There are two ways to get rid of North Korea's nukes.
A. Preemptive nuclear strike. B. Provoke them into launching everything they've got.

North Korea does not stand as evidence of a double standard. It does however demonstrate what happens when the US doesn't put out a fire: it doesn't get put out. America had better be thanking its lucky stars that the mistakes of North Korea were in fact made in North Korea, because this had happened for the first time in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, or Sudan, just to name a few, it would have changed the world Profoundly

Ultimately, none of the NPT signatories will be interested in being the "good guy" vs. the U.S. "bad guy" so the document will become more worthless than the paper on which it was drafted as each signatory drops from the agreement to re-design and re-deploy their new weapons like dominoes.

Don't be so sure.

1. Once this administration is gone (and believe me, I'm checking my watch every five minutes) it is quite possible that future administrations will wise up and rely on the physicists to tell them that the weapons work, or just scrap the new development. How much more advanced do nuclear weapons have to get exactly? They can end life on Earth- are we looking for a weapon design big enough to destroy a whole star system now?

2. The Europeans seem to think that letting somebody else do your dirty work makes you civilized. They really haven't grown up all that much since the height of their respective empires. Odds are that they'll stay in the treaty at least for the time being and contract with us to test things for them, so that they can continue to badmouth us over it when their elections come arond.

3. Anyone with their head on straight is going to have a jolly good laugh at our expense if we start testing again. Who in their right mind builds a weapon whose destructive power cannot be compared to anything else man has ever made, then spends billions of dollars on re-development because, essentially, they're not happy with the color.

Iran and the Bomb:
Though it becomes quite evident that a nation with significant crude reserves has little need for nuclear energy save the tangential output of weapons-grade material from the enrichment process,

I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to admit this.

It makes sense as one sees the inordinate influence on geo-politics that the nuclear nations bring to the table. Wanting the Bomb and having the Bomb are two completely different things,

Again you're right, mostly. Two things:
1. Nobody has a right to the bomb. Weapons of war can not be ascribed any moral imperative or value. Building nuclear weapons, from a utilitarian view of morality, is inherently wrong. Therefore they can want them all day long, but they have no expectation of not being stopped, by force if necessary.

2. These are not things that are to be dealt with at the last minute. Pray to god that they are 10 years away from getting the bomb, and further pray that they never get within 5 years. If they are 10 years away, yes, you work with them for a year or two. Tech sharing for early missile warning- fine. Theater missile defense systems- fine. A non-aggression pact, or even a pledge of support in the event of any unprovoked aggression against their country- fine. For that matter I'd sign my name in blood that if they didn't arm that I'd pursue Israeli disarmament next through the UN and economic pressure. In the end though, if they won't take a fair offer then we have to take the ugly option and stop them from arming themselves.

I think America should have an incredibly long fuse, but at the end of the day, it has got to be connected to a very big bomb.

It has been clear that Europe does not maintain the bloodlust for Middle Eastern oil that the U.S. does and nothing helps to get an ally to see things your way like the creation of a common enemy.

Europeans are no less oppressive or economically exploitative than America. They ride our coattails when practical, they choose different pawns, and they let people like Saddam do a lot of their killing for them (exactly as we did in the 80s). If you think for one minute that European governments have more conscience than we, it is probably because you rely to heavily on an Ameri-centric media without probing deeper into the history of situations and the roles of other powers.

The Oil Bourse:

There is no strategically sound way to conquer Iran this year. It'll be airstrikes or a third party strike if anything, or we're going to face a social crisis.
More to the point of the oil bourse, that's war for you. War is not isolated to times of violent action. There is a force continuum which includes economic competition and most nations are in competition with one another. The Europeans jockey for position (and in so doing commit the same character of offenses that we often do as I mentioned above) and naturally we will counter for our own security, militarily if necessary. There is no moral highground on the issue. Sucks to be Europe- we can and we usually do protect our interests to the detriment of rivals.
In this case however, I'll be very surprised if we invade.


I'll get back to you on the false flag. I've got stuff that needs doing right now.

Chaosrain, Great Thread!

Honestly, I don’t understand why if Money makes the world go around, we don’t analyze most conflicts from an economic perspective.

That was the most attractive about your post.

I am surprised when people make this war to be some kind of cultural clash.
"Follow the money" is in most cases more objective than Bias, Ideologies centered analysis.

I will love to see historic events rewritten from the "Follow the Money" perspective.

Originally posted by LoKito
Honestly, I don’t understand why if Money makes the world go around, we don’t analyze most conflicts from an economic perspective.

That was the most attractive about your post.

This is a good thread, but I would not take it forgranted that we're going to war with, or nuking Iran, based on a catch phrase.

I'm not sure that following the money leads to nuking anyone, especially in the middle east, unless far greater consequences are to be expected if we fail to act immediately. Those consequences against which the money must be weighed may be economic in a direct sense, they may be other with an indirect potential to impact the economy, or they may in a handful of cases be purely ideological or otherwise non-economic, although such actions usually depend on popular outrage or executive idealism and may not enjoy long support if things go wrong.

Follow the money on nuking Iran:

From Vagabond's twisted imagination
Breaking news here of FNC- Iran, the second largest exporter in OPEC and second most natural-gas rich nation IN THE WORLD is, by all reports, completely without government or infrastructure in the wake of a US nuclear attack. As many of you know, Iran exports 150,000 barrels of oil a day to China, plus contracts for 360,000,000 tons of natural gas over a 25 year period.

Markets have reacted badly and oil prices have soared as China seeks its oil elsewhere, however the President urges for calm.
*cut to soundbyte* "This is difficult, but it's necessary. The terrorists must understand that America will not hesitate to be an economic suicide-bomber in the name keeping everyone else's economy smaller than ours."

In related news, the Chinese ambassador says he's "major ticked off", but "probably just going to whistle a happy tune and let America do whatever it wants." Although we cannot confirm this, some sources do say that the ambassador had his fingers crossed behind his back while saying that. I'm Rill O'Breilly, stay tuned, right here on Faux News

Please know that the sub-serious tone here is not intended as an insult. I'm just taking a novel way of saying that I think that extremely radical moves in the name of money tend to be very destabilizing and won't always get you the money, therefore I'm not sure a follow the money analysis leads us to war on Iran until such time as a conventional operation can be undertaken, preferably with out a draft.