It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
It's been suggested that President George W. Bush and others who will follow him in to office now want to start the next world war. How much truth is there to this idea? Are the dangerous times we live in due to innocent trends? Or, ware they something else?

I'm starting this thread at the request of several ATS members, so that we can all kick this around with all the due dilligence it deserves. The (first) Clinton administration was amazingly slack when it came to Middle Eastern policy. Today's Bush43 administration seems to be over zealous. What do you think WOULD trigger the next war that will involve U.S. forces?

I'd like to ask for some critical thinking here, so please explain your reasoning. Everybody's got an opinion, but I'd like to see your background on what and why you think certain events will take place.




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hello all. I am actually the one who wanted such a thread to be created the most, so I will start it off.

Before I begin, I just want to say that if there are people who believe that the U.S. government seeks to start World War III (or IV, depending on your perspective), I am not one of them. I am officially an ex-conspiracy theorist and I am convinced that nobody in the U.S. government seeks to start World War III. Therefore, I believe that World War III will be the result of a trend and accidents, which I prefer to call mistakes and lost opportunities. C. Wright Mills' power elite thesis is the trend, and the billions of different dynamics of life form the accident.

That being said, I don't ignore the fact that members of the American power elite do prefer to advance their interests how ever possible, even if it is through war. But are they willing to make it a world war? I do not believe so. I'm sure they would prefer a bunch of Desert Storm-type wars as opposed to a massive war. It is no secret that the power elite has much to gain from a foreign policy that involves extensive military activity. The thing to remember, however, is that this power elite thesis is not a conspiracy theory, but rather a systemic, organizational phenomenon. While Barack Obama is in many ways the polar opposite of George W. Bush, he is still a part of this power elite because he has the ability to influence national affairs.

Anyway, my own personal World War III scenario (I develop these as a study method, a way of understanding the world), which has gone through numerous incarnations and revisions, is dead. What I intended and saw as the 21st century's version of World War I, I see now as utterly impossible due to my better understanding of the forces and dynamics at work in this new world. For a while, I almost assumed that World War III was a long way off, but after doing some reading and research I see that it is very likely a major conflict will arise in the future. It will just be that radically different from what we have seen in the past. Bottom line is, the Long War will be dominated by MOOTWs, small-scale contingencies, and low-intensity conflict, war amongst the people. But it will have some huge bumps along the way as well. One of those bumps is the following scenario.

So, I would like your thoughts on how World War III would occur in the near future. My new scenario still involves Iran, although instead of my half-baked, impossible "Iran invading the UAE" scenario that I shared with Justin and others like Vagabond, it now involves a U.S.-U.K.-Israel-Saudi Arabia attack on Iran as retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack that is foiled on U.S. soil. There is a huge twist however, and it comes in the form of a nuclear stand-off with China. In response to the impending attack on Iran, China, an unlikely ally of the Islamic Republic, threatens its own military response, which is exaggerated by Fox News as a nuclear attack, and thus you have the stand-off. It becomes the most sever nuclear crisis in history, as the U.S. comes within 30 seconds of dropping a nuclear bomb on Beijing.

My specific questions are the following:
- How will the Allied governments convince the public of Iran's duplicity? Will another terrorist attack simply delegitimize everyone to the point we have no choice but to attack Iran?
- Assuming the terrorist attack is foiled, how exactly will the U.S. choose to handle the emergency response? Will the Emergency Alert System be utilized? How ill it report the incident to the nation?
- What is the nature of the military response against Iran? Will it be limited air strikes? Will we declare war? What is the domestic response to both the terrorist attack as well as the military response?

In regards to China:
- Fox News reports (inaccurately) that China is seeking to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons in order to preempt their strike on Iran. What is the immediete result of this? How high will the DEFCON status go? What is the domestic response to this stand-off?

Much of my scenario is garnered from the postulates of General Barry McCaffrey, who recently presented this slide during a seminar he was in charge of:



Note that McCaffrey believes terrorists will strike during the next administration's first term. The foiled nuclear terrorist attack is that first-term strike. I see Barack Obama as president and the time being late 2009. This is what I see being America's status quo in late 2009, again much of it gleaned from mcCaffrey's own predictions:

- The recession will really begin taking hold at around this time, and rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, family violence, crime, depression, and we'll throw in incest for good measure, will be at an all-time high.
- Barack Obama, upon entering office, will order his military commanders to win the Iraq War that year. This will lead to an all-out effort by U.S. and Coalition forces to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, which almost folds under the incredible pressure applied by the Coalition. Unfortunately, by the end of the year, the U.S. shows signs of strain and the military reports they have very little left to give. This precipitates the beginnings of a lengthy withdrawal.
- The Global War on Terrorism expands to the Horn of Africa, which becomes embroiled in bloodshed and chaos. Eritrea engages in warfare with U.S. ally Djibouti, an attack that is defeated by a single Marine Expeditionary Unit. In light of what is seen as a terrorist breeding ground on the verge of exploding, President Bush's last order as Commander-in-Chief is to commence an unprecedented peacekeeping and humanitarian operation in conjunction with the U.N. in Sudan. What starts as a huge MOOTW results in a protracted guerrilla war that results in many civilian deaths and unspeakable atrocities and further strains the U.S. military. Bono and Angelina Jolie are killed in the crossfire in Darfur.
- The U.S. will have to deal with a new enemy to the south: Venezuela. Venezuela will play a major role in America's confrontations with China.

There is more to come. I look forward to your responses.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Oh yeah, I'd like a name for this counter-attack on Iran, Operation-something. Something that you think the Obama administration would approve of.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I'd appreciate some more of your thoughts over the weekend. I'm going to start drafting my response to this. You'll hear from me on Monday.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I have starred and flagged this. Here is a topic that sorely needs discussing.

This is our short term future. Everyone needs to give this some real thought.

Where will we, and the world, be in another five years?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I cannot see at this point China doing more than posturing as long as we continue to feed the economic side. However this will not last forever.

If we have a terrorist attack after the election I cannot help but wonder about US collusion.

I see increased friction in the India/Pakistan Area.

Russia may attempt to strengthen border troops and posturing due to increase in NATO troop and armament buidup. This may be the weak link. I am unsure of the stability of those running the new bear.

The african continent is ripe for a large scale military event in my opinion due to so many nations being unstable and the large amount of natural resources still to be plundered.

Venezula I think may calm down after Bush leaves office.

So much really depends on how well the US economy recovers, and if there really is a conspiracy to take over the world by those who have the power.

If there really is a banking cartel that wants to truly rule the worlds as such, then we cannot rule out some kind of confrontation with Chine due to the increase in economic power they are creating for themselves and their lack of a central bank. [did I just contradict myself]

My two uneducated cents worth. Now back to those that have a better understanding of world views than I.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I would like to start off by thanking Justin for giving me a platform to speak my mind on this issue.

Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

When we talk about Global war are we not talking at the base root about money? I dont think this is an accident, as these people are far to invested into their money, stocks, and banker buddies.

A trend? Prehaps, but then agin a trend is something that is in style and then goes out of style within the next generation or so, only to be reborn into something else, like for example disco, later turned into techno. Thus Global War is an evolving trend if it is a trend. Its been the hopes of all mighty kings, Czars, Empires alike to rule the world. This is an on going trend that has seen many many lifetimes of men.

Now I firmly belive there is an honest Conspiracy within high levels to promote World conflict. What better way than to take over while everyone else is fighting! They create many problems and then in turn fund both sides of the problem to make the most dollar as possible. Like I said before when I think of war, in this day and age this boils down to money for me.

--If I may use another small example of how this works. Anyone like to play risk? If played with 5-6 people this can serve as a great way to explain how getting your friends to fight umoung themselfs can serve you're greater plans in such a game.
If everyone is picking on YOU, and decides they want you off the map, its done, you are out of the game, because 4 other players decided its time for you to go. Yet there is always that one player who knows how to talk, and get everyone on his side, while the whole time, he just wants to Win the game. And will stab you in the back when your armies are spread thin, and you are low on resources. In real life this is much much deeper than a game of risk.. But its still a game all the same to these people. More over its just business!




What do you think WOULD trigger the next war that will involve U.S. forces?


Iran, bottom line.. I have already heard Hillary Clinton talk about if there was some kind of attack, that she would be open to using nukes on Iran and wipe them off the face of the Earth.
China, thats number 2 in my book. China is still a card that is the Ace up the sleeve persay. They wont pull that one out on us until they feel they need a trump card to lay down.

So what would trigger this. A false flag attack on Israel that will be blamed on Iran, then we will be full force attack on Iran.
Or prehaps Iran could be bullied into an attack aswell.. But to me that falls under false flag attack, I.E Pearl Harbor.
Iran might feel as if they are being back into a corner. Or those in high places in Iran will go ahead and call for the attacks, with knowledge that they will get nuked, it would serve their greater good.
Governments have proven over and over agin they dont care about the people, they care about money, and they dont need low income slaves, to bring in the money. They have been hoarding resources long enough not to miss a few hundred thosand slaves.

And everyone will be so willing to do this, because I repeat another False flag attack will happen! And this will serve as a repeat of the 911 attacks on the world. But will happen aginst Isreal! And provoke the middle east great Wars as I see them comming.
False flag or not, its going to become very real..

Why do I feel this way, and what leads me to belive this is how the game will play out? Well because first off I have seen this Global War as a big game in the first place. Alot of drugs, oil, and Gold is on the line in this high stake game.
There is much inner fighting that non of us know about that is going on in backrooms with the doors closed, surrounded by armed guards all dressed in black.
Its all about money! And a good reason to go to war is to either run your foe out of resources, or stock pile resources from the spoils of war. Each side is being funded by the same top levels of corporation.
The corporations who lose out, are the ones who have been fighting on the inside, those are your losers.. The ones who couldnt hold onto their grasp of power.. Global War to me is about money. And pure business at its most primal form. Nothing personal. its just Biz! And those who lose backed the wrong pony. While the bigger names know they have nothing to lose. They have planned many things to destroy those who wish to take their places.. Some things Im sure go unseen, but are then quickly dealt with, and non of us know about these dealings, you wont here them on the news. And maybe something will get leaked out, and labeled a hoax.

I cant even say people, because from what I have learned a corporation is an entity itself. Thus people who run these corporation entities are able to dodge the blame because its not one person, or one group to place blame on. Its the entire corporation entity that is making most our problems. Hence you can not say them, or they.. Well who are they? Or them.

Its no longer they or them at this stage of the game. Its the entity!
And the entities are making lots and lots of money off these Global Wars, until they own everything, and rule every part of your life!

Thats why they will need a global Army. Because many people say if you rule the world what do you need an Army for?
Its there to keep you in line! And they will dominate this world soon if people dont start acting together, and having discussions like this.

Edit- Wanted to add that this idea is much older than all the Bush family and their current dynasty. If I can find the video where Bush himself talks about ancient orders, and very old ideas!
As much as I dont like Bush and family, its not their ideas, nor is it something they just dreamed up with some banker friends.
This has been a long time in the works! These are ancient ideas, and kept from the people threw Secert Society like Skull and Bones.
I also belive that the Nazi war party only lost a battle, and didnt honestly lose the War! THis war moves onto the next stage. While most comman folks belived that the Nazi where defeated? But then if they are totally defeated where did they go? Right many of them came to America Via a Vatican ticket. No my friends, Nazi war party is still alive and well to this day. And they pushing the globa War behind the curtin. While most America sleeps, and truely belives that there are no more Nazi left in this world.. No they where smart and knew the battle was lost, but the WAR was far from over. And they knew that true power comes in the form of controling our food supply, and becomming a corporate entity!
As when you become a corporate entity its now capitalism. Under the geise of freedom.
Such as having Liberty here in the USA.. Liberty is not freedom! Liberty is a term used by saliors when on a ship they must ask their commander for some time off the boat, which is coined as Liberty.
You have Liberty in the USA, but you are not free! There is a big difference in the two words.
You are free to do as you are told, and you are free think and speak what they tell you to speak in the media.
While I can agree we here in the USA have it much better than others in the world, but WE did fight for that at one time.. And now a days it seems people want to ask why our freedoms have been taken away, and we just get Liberty? Our generation has not had to stand and fight for anything other than what we are told.
To kill without question is what makes this world such a brainwashed state of affairs. They couldnt fight these wars, if you asked yourself if you where to fight for something.. What am I really fighting for?
While that mindset is deeply frowned upon in any military.
They train you to kill, not ask questions.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by zysin5]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I'll just come out and say that I do believe that there is a conspiracy for world domination. Is Bush in charge of it? Probably not. I don't even think that Cheney is. But I see this coming because of the changes that have been made to our government fundamentally. We have changed what it means to be the President of the United States, and that suggests that there are much bigger changes on the horizon.

Personally, I believe that there will probably be a false flag of some kind before the end of Bush's term. He and Cheney have worked hard for the elite, and they like having that power. I don't think that they will see anyone else as being quite so pliable.

Once the false flag has occurred, Bush will launch martial law. The people of this country will be surpressed and whoever is alleged to be responsible for the attack will be targeted. Our allies will join us while the allies of the "them" in the scenario will join together. Iran, Syria, and North Korea seem to be likely targets.

Even if I'm wrong and Bush does leave office, the possibility for the elite ruling class to initiate such a false flag is not entirely impossible. They have a lot of money and a lot of power across the globe. Making an attack seem real would not be difficult at all.

It will be a global war, and America will become fascist and oppressive in the name of security. Unfortunately, most Americans will buy into this out of fear. Hopefully, not all though.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Well IMO World War 3 is currently being fought with the enemy being Islamic extremists . Other then the possibility of Iran gaining Nuclear weapons once the US withdraws from Iraq the Middle East will have run its course . As the supply of affordable natural resources dries up the US will fight a series of proxy in Africa . The US will wrestle with China in order to try and gain control of the vast untapped resources that lie in the dark continent.

See this thread for more on this matter .



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The timmer on my edit button has run out! So I found one of those videos I was talking about in my post. About why I feel the way I do.
This is a mash up of those who are ruled by the Bush dynasty.
And why I feel the way I do. And why this is a conspiracy, as the puppets have said alot to tell us where we are headed.
Im sure many of you have already seen or heard many of the parts on this video. But I just wanted to add this as proof to enforce my post that I made concerning this issue.


I will do my best to try to find another video that helps me put forth even more reasons why I feel this is a big game, and a conspiracy all the same.
While my words can only do so much.. Its my place to help teach those who dont know, something.
And if you have any other questions about this, please feel free to send me a U2. I will do my best to make some time to answer any and all questions you might have.


This one touches base on the factions of power that are fighting from within. Now for a long time now I have felt that Globa conflict is directly related to these backdoor battles..
The battles that we the people hear nothing about.
The world is still up for grabs.. And no one man is going to just rule the world. Its all entities that are trying to grab for power.
They learned long ago that no one man can rule the world.
No one man or small group can take control in such a way.
THus to say the NWO is making Global War is only one small piece to this great big puzzle. There are wars within Wars. And battles being lost, only to retreat to fight another day.
The War will keep on going until we learn enough to get to the base roots of all this. And this is something I am working very hard on to uncover.
While I myself can not do this alone.. I need all of to help me.
One man can not do this by ourselfs. And setting aside ego and what not.
We all have to work together. As I am very open to having everything I say taken apart. As this is not the world I wish it too be.
I would be more than happy if I was 100% wrong.


Im going to try to add as much substance to this post as I can here.
This way we can look at all sides to this, and try our best not to end up becomming stuck in our ways or bias with our own personal feelings.


The Global War like I stated before is all about money. But there is more to it than just money, but money is the key factor.
Terrorism, is one of the main emotional strings that are pulled to get us to feel afraid, or in fear. The 3rd video will cover both sides of the story.
Where some feel terror is a real threat that could follow us, or haunt us if we pull out.
While others belive that the war on terror is nothing more than a bumber sticker.. And a way to manipulate Americans feelings about our reasoning for War.
Im still trying my best to digg up that video of Bush and his speech when he talks about ancient ideas that this dynasty is trying to fullfill.
He only said this once in all his term.. It may take me a while to find it, if I can even find it agin. But I have the kind of memory, that if I hear or see something one time, I can normally remember it very well.

Did not Hilter use that same push to get his peoples behind him in Germany? Was it not Hilter and many others before him who blamed many issues on terrorism? At that time it was the Russian terroist who burned down the reichstag building. And that was blamed on terroists.
Was it not the USA that funed Osama to fight the red terrorist?
And now Osama is the terroist? This reeks of a conspiracy!
NO matter how you cut it, this is a conspiracy.
Be it a conspriacy from the US governments views. Or those views of Osama's men and armies. One way or another you can not deny its a conspiracy!

Now today we have the same old song and dance. Terror! And more Terror.. Those evil doers! Those bad bad men!


[edit on 3-5-2008 by zysin5]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


In this post, I want to address my fictional terrorist attack and its links to our involvement in Africa.

Before I begin, I want to say I'm a bit appalled at how rampant and adhered to the conspiracy angle is when it comes to this issue. I don't doubt for a minute that much of war and our foreign policy has financial and economic roots and implications, but again, it is not a conspiracy. There is no proof of it but there is both empirical evidence and theory that shows this is just a systemic, organizational problem.

The attempt at nuclear terrorism's sparkplug is America's involvement in the Horn of Africa. In addition to the MOOTWs, the increasing activities of U.S. petroleum companies and private military companies such as Blackwater Worldwide only exacerbate what has become an biblically violent and chaotic environment. The overwhelming firepower employed by the U.N.-managed forces breeds incredible resentment among the locals, many of whom join Al-Qaeda and seek to wage war against the West. Conflicting matters further is the internal conflict between the U.N., the U.S. military, and the PMCs and corporations.

The terrorist attack is planned to have a fission bomb be detonated in New York City. Unfortunately, this is not the only attempt at such an attack on the U.S. or its forces. Another terrorist attack will follow, and despite being non-nuclear in nature, it will be successful, and U.S. forces will suffer a major attack.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Let's deal with these elements one at a time.

I understand your preference for a failed terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Hoever, this hypothetical needs to be views through the following prism.

1. "President Obama" is pledged to a 16-month withdrawl from Iraq. If he is seen to reneg on that promise in any way, his administration could be in trouble very fast.

a. His own party may turn on him, which could mean that none of his legislative agenda is carried out in 2009. Funding for this "surge to win" is not likely to pass the House or the Senate.

b. This can spell trouble during the 2010 mid-term elections. If his party loses its majority status, he'll be a lame duck.

In this case, his hypotheticla decision to "win the war in Iraq" within one year would be too risky. Given the unpopular nature of that conflict, Congressional Democrats could 'mutiny,' which would crippe the Obama presidency.

Imagine what Senator Clinton might say:

"During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged time and time again for the departure that we all know is necessary. Now that he's Commander-in-Chief, he says that things in Iraq look different. Why is that? I think it's because his inexperience and his idealism have blinded him to the truth..."

A "disrupted" Obama administration might very well cause cascading intelligence failures which could make it much more likely that a terrorist attack might take place on U.S. soil. Agency budgets might be so disrupted that foriegn backed terrorists could infiltrate without being detected. Such a failure on his watch would ensure that Obama would be a one term President.

Terrorist failure wouldn't be enough to ensure a war with Iran under these conditons. World opinion would counsel restraint. American allies might strongly suggest that the captured terrorists be put on trial, out in the open where everyone can see the proceedings.

If the Iranians deny involvement--and insist on a very public terrorist trial--they'll be in a position to cry "conspiracy" if the Obama administration makes threats against them. World opinion will almost certainly embrace the idea of conspiracy of the Obama administration insists on using a secretive military tribunal to prosecute the arrested terrorists.

The "realpolitik" of the next few years seems to be that a draw-down in Iraq is unavoidable. If McCain is President, we'll expect to see a long-term 'garrison' of 30,000-50,000 personnel in Iraq for at least 4 years. If Obama is President, we may still see that same garrison--but--we won't see any new push for "the win."

There's a difference between "war" and "nation building" hasn't been explained to the American people. Bush43's failure to do so has tied President Obama's hands. He can't push for increased combat operations in Iraq without committing political suicide...unless...unless...that hypotheticla terror attack on U.S. soil is successful. In that event, Obama would be able to martial political and social forces (people would be serious p.o.'d). He'd get his "surge to win" in Iraq.

Action against Iran becomes pheasible if the increased campaign in Iraq yields 'proof' of Iranian duplicity and intent. This back tracking and investigation becomes possible if we assume that the terrorists (who did their evil deed in the U.S.) were captured and forced to give up their secrets. If those secrets validate Obama's claims about Iran...and the findings of investigators in Iraq...he'll get his war with Iran.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
1. "President Obama" is pledged to a 16-month withdrawl from Iraq. If he is seen to reneg on that promise in any way, his administration could be in trouble very fast.

a. His own party may turn on him, which could mean that none of his legislative agenda is carried out in 2009. Funding for this "surge to win" is not likely to pass the House or the Senate.


What do you think it would take for Obama to be able to implement such a policy? Would Clinton or McCain ever support a "surge to win," and then a lengthy withdrawal once its very apparent we have nothing left in the tank?



A "disrupted" Obama administration might very well cause cascading intelligence failures which could make it much more likely that a terrorist attack might take place on U.S. soil. Agency budgets might be so disrupted that foriegn backed terrorists could infiltrate without being detected. Such a failure on his watch would ensure that Obama would be a one term President.


I should've clarified something. The foiling of the terrorist plot is not an indicator of national prowress, but rather that of the local emergency services. In other words, the fact that the terrorists were able to get the weakest of nuclear warheads onto American soil is a catastrophic failure on the part of the national security apparatus.



Terrorist failure wouldn't be enough to ensure a war with Iran under these conditons. World opinion would counsel restraint. American allies might strongly suggest that the captured terrorists be put on trial, out in the open where everyone can see the proceedings.

If the Iranians deny involvement--and insist on a very public terrorist trial--they'll be in a position to cry "conspiracy" if the Obama administration makes threats against them. World opinion will almost certainly embrace the idea of conspiracy of the Obama administration insists on using a secretive military tribunal to prosecute the arrested terrorists.


Call me wrong if need be, but would an attempt at a nuclear 9/11 delegitimize everyone? In other words, would it not set the precedent that the U.S. is indeed vulnerable and that nobody can be trusted, therefore we must retaliate and send a message to the world? Or would it only serve to highlight how much we've screwed up since 1991?. It seems like the matter of detonation or non-detonation of a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil changes so many things.



The "realpolitik" of the next few years seems to be that a draw-down in Iraq is unavoidable. If McCain is President, we'll expect to see a long-term 'garrison' of 30,000-50,000 personnel in Iraq for at least 4 years. If Obama is President, we may still see that same garrison--but--we won't see any new push for "the win."


You've gotta love the terms "Surge to Win" and "The Win." Very media-worthy sayings.




There's a difference between "war" and "nation building" hasn't been explained to the American people. Bush43's failure to do so has tied President Obama's hands. He can't push for increased combat operations in Iraq without committing political suicide...unless...unless...that hypotheticla terror attack on U.S. soil is successful. In that event, Obama would be able to martial political and social forces (people would be serious p.o.'d). He'd get his "surge to win" in Iraq.


I wish writing in this forum was my job, because there is far more to my futurism than what I've stated already. As I alluded to earlier, the War on Terror expands to the Horn of Africa. U.S. forces come under attack by various militaries and militias in the region. These events have the potential to sway American public opinion, do they not?

The U.S. also actually suffers a terrorist attack, shortly before the start of the 2008 World Series. Two nightclubs in Washington, D.C. are bombed, but not by Islamic terrorists. Rather, right-wing Christian Identity members commit the worst act of domestic terror since the Oklahoma City bombing. What effect could this have on the situation?

I would also like you to address the socioeconomic condition of the time (i.e., the recession and its effects).



Action against Iran becomes pheasible if the increased campaign in Iraq yields 'proof' of Iranian duplicity and intent. This back tracking and investigation becomes possible if we assume that the terrorists (who did their evil deed in the U.S.) were captured and forced to give up their secrets. If those secrets validate Obama's claims about Iran...and the findings of investigators in Iraq...he'll get his war with Iran.


The sense that I'm getting is that unilateral action, even with the help of the U.K. and Israel, is largely impossible due to our damaged reputation. It seems like the nuke would have to go off in order for us to be able to act in our own self-interest. Or is this simply a consequence of globalization?

I did concede, however, that such an action will be quite unpopular. Russia will publicly denounce the counter-attack, national public opinion will be split right down the middle, and China will actually step up and dare the U.S. to commence the attack. Unfortunately, Fox News will fulfill its God-given destiny and push the confrontation on step too far...

To be clear, the U.S., U.K., and Israel will eventually strike Iran. The consequences will be devastating - at least for the U.S. military. But more on that later.

I'm not sure how well-versed you are on emergency management procedures, but how exactly would the U.S. government respond to the foiled terrorist attack in terms of dealing with the people? How would they prepare the nation for a war with Iran, and how would they deal with a nuclear stand-off between the U.S. and China, the closest we come to nuclear war - ever. This is a very interesting point to explore, because the U.S. has not had to deal with a civil defense environment since the end of the Cold War. It'll be fascinating to see what measures we employ in the present day to deal with a nuclear attack from another country.

Thanks and I look forward to more responses.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
It sounds to me like you're not telling us the full extent of your hypothetical scenario. It can take a long time, and a lot of work to write up one of these. There are days when it really does feel like a job. Even so, we are just kicking around hypotheticals.

President Bush has already played his best card. The "surge to win" (2007-2008) is not an option that will be available to the next President. American politics being what they are, force reduction is the only remaining viable option if that future Prez wants to have a second term.

The essential problem you've got with a foiled nuke attack is that the averagel person won't get mad over casualties that didn't happen. the most you can hope for in this case would be a renewed call for sanctions agaisnt Iran. Any future President would latch on to that one as a good political option.

As I understand the nuts and bolts of your scenario, the following objective are in play:

1. U.S. and the U.K. ally with Israel to strike Iran.

2. The resulting war goes wrong.

that is possible, but you'll have to take a different road to get there. Give me a few hours, and I'll show you what I mean.

"I'll be back..."



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It sounds to me like you're not telling us the full extent of your hypothetical scenario. It can take a long time, and a lot of work to write up one of these. There are days when it really does feel like a job. Even so, we are just kicking around hypotheticals.


There is just so much going on to put in one post and I have to explain each in depth in order to convey my true message.



President Bush has already played his best card. The "surge to win" (2007-2008) is not an option that will be available to the next President. American politics being what they are, force reduction is the only remaining viable option if that future Prez wants to have a second term.


I suppose I am very close to throwing out "The Win" as part of my future.



The essential problem you've got with a foiled nuke attack is that the averagel person won't get mad over casualties that didn't happen. the most you can hope for in this case would be a renewed call for sanctions agaisnt Iran. Any future President would latch on to that one as a good political option.


So you really do see a retaliatory was as unlikely?



As I understand the nuts and bolts of your scenario, the following objective are in play:

1. U.S. and the U.K. ally with Israel to strike Iran.

2. The resulting war goes wrong.

that is possible, but you'll have to take a different road to get there. Give me a few hours, and I'll show you what I mean.

"I'll be back..."


I will write the second half of this story after I finish a paper and read your next response.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Okay, here we go. This is a hypothetical scenario. I'm going to divide this in to two (2) parts so that we can all have a shot at talking about the choices involved. Be calm. Be patient. Think before you type.

**FOR DUSCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY**

Theory: At some future point, the United States and the U.K. will ally with Israel in a war against Iran. This war will begin as a regional matter, then escalate in to a global conflict.

August, 2008. Hillary Clinton fights all the way to the Democratic Nominating convention in Denver, Colorado. At the convention, she doesn't have enough popular vote or delegate strength to gain the Presidency. For the sake of this discussion, we'll assume that she put party loyalty above her own self interest.

November, 2008. The Obama-Clinton ticket sweeps to victory, defeating the McCain-Huckabee effort by a decisive margin. Mid-term elections favor the Democrats, reducing the Republicans to a very small minority in the House and in the Senate.

January 20, 2009. Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. As part of his inaugural addres, he says the following:

"We have come to this point in our history becasue we dared to hope. With that same spirit of optimism in mind, we now turn our efforts toward the future. In the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, we will build what must be built. We'll do what mus be done, no matter where those obligations may take us."


Background: (June 2008-January 2009)

1. The U.S. economy enters a deep economic recession. The national unemployment rate hovers at around 6%.

2. Oil exceeds $125 per barrell. Gasoline prices at the pump average $4.75 per gallon for 'regular,' and $6.02 for diesel.

3. Food prices have risen by 81%. American dead in Iraq and Afghanistan reaches 4,500.

4. President George W. Bush leaves office with an estimated 17% approval rating.

February 2, 2009. President Obama is briefed by CIA and Irsraeli intelligence officers. He is informed hat the Iranian heavy water reactor at Beshir is about to go online. Intercepted documents suggest that the Iranians plan to activate the reactor during a ceremoney at which Russian diplomats will be present. The exact date of start up is not know, though it is expected to occur with the next 30 days.

Considerations:

1. The Israeli government is categorically opposed to the Iranian nuclear program. Behind closed doors, the Israeli ambassador tells President Obama:

"We're not going to let this happen. The Iranians have long since pledged to destroy us. An active reactor of this type means that they'll be developing and deploying nuclear missiles within five years. Even if these are low-yield air burst weapons, they'll still be enough to destroy our economy and pollute our soil and drinking water beyond repair. This matter is not open for negotiation. Help us, or stand aside. We will act."

2. The Obama administration has considerations of its own. Candidate Obama pledged to begin an immediate draw-down of U.S. forces in Iraq. he first made this pledge in mid-2007. He is honest and blunt with the Israeli ambassador.

"During the election, I promised to bring our troops home from Iraq. Congress is expecting me to make that announcement any day now. My own party accepted this as a condition of my Presidency when we hashed things out at the nominating convention, in Denver. Let me take your case to the American people. We can go to the U.N. to insist on greater sanctions against Iran. We might even be able to work through the Russians. the simple truth is that this is just bad timing."

February 15, 2009. Home foreclosures are at an all-time high. Personal credit is becoming harder to get. Credit card interest rates average 41% as multi-national firms around the world try to "dry up" the bad debt and excess money supply. Four of America's seven largest investment banks are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. They can no longer shield their saving-and-loan divisions from loss. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve makes a brutally honest assessment:

"Federal and private sector debts now exceed holdings and collateral. It's happened much faster than anyone thought possible. The economy remains in tact, though at a drastically reduced capacity."

February 20, 2009. British intelligence sources begin to hear from field agents regarding something called Yasir Al Islam, "The Lion of Islam." MI6 presumes this to be a new terrorist group. The information is catalogued and classified as an undetermined threat.

February 22, 2009. President Obama requests that a fresh National Intelligence Estimate be drawn up for Iran. He communicates his fears to the directors of CIA, NSA, and DHS. With thier budgets in doubt, the directors of these agencies decide to 'play up' the menace of the Iranian reactor. The N.I.E. is put on the fast track. It will be completed in 30 days.

February 30, 2009. President Obama meets with the Democratic Chair of the Senate Intelligence committee. The Iranian situation is discussed. No records of the meeting are kept.

March 1, 2009. Under pressure from congress, President Obama announced that he is asking the Pentagon to draw up plans for a phased withdrawl from Iraq. During a nationally televised press conference, he says:

"I know what you're thinking, and the answer is 'no.' I am not dragging my feet. Now that I'm the President, a lot of things have been brought to my attention. There's a lot more to this job than meets the eye. We're getting to the matter of Iraq as fast as we can. Let's not forget that we have Iran to contend with. One false move on our part, and things could get out of hand."

March 4, 2009. As part of a routine monthly information sharing conference, MI6 relates the low level threat details of Yasir Al Islam to the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA catalogs the information. An incorrect data entry results in the item being marked "case closed." this error is discovered by a low level employee on April 5, 2009.

March 20, 2009. MI6 notes that all references to Yasir Al Islam have disappeared from European sourced traffic. One brief but vague report filed by an unreliable source suggests that "the lion" is not a group, but a 'package.' As a matter of standard operating procedure, the source is instructed to seek further details.

April 5, 2009. A low-ranking CIA employee has discovered that case data relating to Yasir Al Islam was incorrectly filed. The employee is disciplined for evaluating information outside their field of expertise. The file remains "case closed."

April 6, 2009. MI6 and CIA officials meet for their monthy information sharing conference. New details emerge regarding the heavy water plant at Beshir. The Iranians have new air defenses on line, and a nearby airstrip has been upgraded to service quick-launch Sukoi intercepters. to make matter worse, it now appears that the start up date for the reactor in July 4th, 2009.

April 20, 2009. The Iranian intelligence estimate is ready ahead of schedule. The rsults are shocking. Irsraeli intelligence contributes verified photo imagery of uprated air defenses. Prefabricated concrete sections have been added to the reactor's main housing and pump stations. NSA satellite "look down" determines that there are in fact three (3) rapid response air bases in the area, each with shielded air defense.
CIA sources in Tehran suggest that rocket production (Shihab III) has been under-estimated.

April 30, 2009. During a closed door briefing with House and Senate leaders, President Obama outlines his options for dealing with the Iranian problem.

"The date of July 4th is no accident. They're sending me a message, loud and clear. Now, here's the real nub of the problem. I've put off the withdrawl from Iraq as long as I can. If we start the pull out, and they start that reactor...we look weak. They might even be able to sell it to the international community as my version of a silent approval. The worst part is this. The Israelis are going to act, no matter what we do."

President Obama's options are limited. The can be assessed as follows:

1. He can send his Secretary of State to the United Nations with the proof that the U.S., U.K., and Israel, have collected. This event will be compaired by the MSM to Secretary Powell's presentation in 2002. The evidence is more damning, but U.S. prestige is limited.

2. He can make his case to the American people. This will mean compromising strategic intelligence assets in order to have any shot at gaining the public's trust. His speech will no doubt be compaired to the speech made by John F. Kennedy during the start of the Cuban missile crisis. U.S. prestige may be enhanced if the international community perceives motive and intent to be "honest."

3. He can order secret military plans to be put in to effect. a) Carriers can be moved to the Eastern Med and to the Arabian Sea. b) Special forces teams can be sent in to Iran ahead of Israeli action to evaluate air strike damage, after the fact. c) Nuclear ballistic missile submarines can be moved in to optimal firing positions. d) B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber rotations can be changed to bring those assets closer to Iran, at a higher degree of readiness. e) Marine Expeditionary Forces already in the region can be pulled out of the line and made ready for action in or near Iran. f) Ready reserves in Iraq can be moved towards the Iranian border.

International May Day, May 1st, 2009. Conspiracy theorists on Above Top Secret dot-com begin discussing the possibility of a terror attack on U.S. soil when a new poster claims to have knowledge of something called Yasir Al Islam. Nobody believes him, and he is quickly labelled as a Hoaxer.

May 6, 2006. President Obama bows to pressure from his fellow Democrats. In a nationally televised speech, he announces the start of force redeployment from Iraq.

"In spite of what we see as a worsening situation in the Middle East, we must follow through on our committments to de-escalate tensions in the region. With this very clear goal in mind, I have signed my administration's first executive order. Starting in June, we'll be bringing home one combat brigade each month. We'd do what's necessary, if the sitaution changes. For now, I'm happy to announce that this pledge--which I made so long ago--is now being fulfilled."

May 10, 2009. Terorists enter the United States with a low-yield nuclear device. Their identities are not know. They have instructions to wait for a specific event. If that event takes place, they will complete their mission.

May 20, 2009. 3:00 A.M. President Obama is roused from his bed by a troubling phone call...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

T&C's don't permit me to take this example any further. As you can see, the permutations are many and varied. The implications are stark and bitter. This CAN happened. The question is, how do we prevent it?

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Is it possible to prevent it? Personally, I see too much ignorance and unwillingness to get involved to do anything substantial. As one person has said, Americans will not see how bad this is until there are armed guards barging into their homes, taking their belongings, and sending them off to worker camps. It's unfortunate, but we have a tendency to believe in the system. They've taken their time in their efforts to destroy our country, and without some major problem that all Americans can rally around, they will have no incentive to give the power back to the people. The executive powers that have been put in place are probably not going to be repealed because any of the candidates will see them as a "possible necessity." Of course, one could make the argument of "possible necessity" for nearly anything. But the American people have become numb to the pathetic attempts of the government to defend its actions.

Case in point: we are discussing torture in one of my classes tomorrow. I can almost guarantee that several of the students will agree with Michael Levin's views on the necessity of torture in certain scenarios. And even after I explain that the arguments are only seemingly convincing on the surface, there will still be many who will disagree because they want the government to save them. Instead of being prepared, we have become afraid. We have accepted our government's claims that we should be afraid that we need a father figure to take care of us. Unless and until we start to understand the system and hold our leaders accountable, we cannot be free. It's like living with Mom and Dad and following their rules when you're 35 years old. Most of us could only take that for so long. . . .hopefully, the American people will tire of it and grow up soon!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
If you get a chance, please look at the other threads in this forum. I think you'll find that I've been talking about what you just said for some time. I agree with everything you just said.

I'm hoping this thread gets more flags and stars.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Wow. Wow is all I can really say about your post. It was so damn realistic and accurate, but it was also like reading a thriller novel. The air of mystery surrounding a lot of these events is phenomenal.

Put it simply, I like your story. This is what I had in mind regarding the details of the events leading up to the terrorist attack. I do not understand why you can't go any further, however.

I want to address a few issues:



November, 2008. The Obama-Clinton ticket sweeps to victory, defeating the McCain-Huckabee effort by a decisive margin. Mid-term elections favor the Democrats, reducing the Republicans to a very small minority in the House and in the Senate.


I'm not convinced an Obama-Clinton ticket will ever happen. The two seem pretty adamant about it not happening. Considering how ansty the battle has been so far, it just doesn't seem like a likely scenario.



International May Day, May 1st, 2009. Conspiracy theorists on Above Top Secret dot-com begin discussing the possibility of a terror attack on U.S. soil when a new poster claims to have knowledge of something called Yasir Al Islam. Nobody believes him, and he is quickly labelled as a Hoaxer.


Who is this mysterious poster? How does he know about Yasir Al Islam? Is he the next John Titor?




1. He can send his Secretary of State to the United Nations with the proof that the U.S., U.K., and Israel, have collected. This event will be compaired by the MSM to Secretary Powell's presentation in 2002. The evidence is more damning, but U.S. prestige is limited.

2. He can make his case to the American people. This will mean compromising strategic intelligence assets in order to have any shot at gaining the public's trust. His speech will no doubt be compaired to the speech made by John F. Kennedy during the start of the Cuban missile crisis. U.S. prestige may be enhanced if the international community perceives motive and intent to be "honest."

3. He can order secret military plans to be put in to effect. a) Carriers can be moved to the Eastern Med and to the Arabian Sea. b) Special forces teams can be sent in to Iran ahead of Israeli action to evaluate air strike damage, after the fact. c) Nuclear ballistic missile submarines can be moved in to optimal firing positions. d) B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber rotations can be changed to bring those assets closer to Iran, at a higher degree of readiness. e) Marine Expeditionary Forces already in the region can be pulled out of the line and made ready for action in or near Iran. f) Ready reserves in Iraq can be moved towards the Iranian border.


Considering these are simply preemptive precautionary options availiable to Mr. Obama, which of these would you advise, should you be his National Security Advisor? It seems to me that Option #3 can be activiated concurrently with the other two options, but it looks as though he will have to choose between international and domestic prestige when choosing either Option #1 or #2.

Overall, you've pretty much laid out what I believe are the events that will lead to the next big global crisis. I realize I have not been very clear on what I see as the events leading to World War III. Therefore, in my next post, utilizing the information you have laid out, I will fill the "front" and "back." I will clarify the events of the last months of the Bush presidency as well as what happens when your story ends.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
When I'm not here on ATS, I am known as the author of political fiction. I'm just doing what amounts to my day job by laying these things out in a way that's interesting. I'll be looking forward to what the others have to say.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join