The Iran War

Aetius wrote:

Iran winning on oil sanctions. In a nutshell, the possibility of war and shortages elsewhere have driven up the price, which means the embargo is currently entirely ineffective in its ostensible goal of reducing Iranian oil revenues.

Yet we as consumers stand by, whine and moan instead of demanding that our government become the catalyst behind an alternative energy movement. Although sadly, it'll never happen because big oil owns our government.

Demand is at a 30 year low.

Production is higher than at any time during the Bush presidency

Anyone want to place a bet on Exxon or Mobil's profit for the 1st quarter? I'm guess around $60B.

This speculative bullsh*t has got to stop. We're not talking about a non-essential item here an this affects every single aspect of our society.

Bear wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Iran winning on oil sanctions. In a nutshell, the possibility of war and shortages elsewhere have driven up the price, which means the embargo is currently entirely ineffective in its ostensible goal of reducing Iranian oil revenues.

Yet we as consumers stand by, whine and moan instead of demanding that our government become the catalyst behind an alternative energy movement. Although sadly, it'll never happen because big oil owns our government.

Demand is at a 30 year low.

Production is higher than at any time during the Bush presidency

Anyone want to place a bet on Exxon or Mobil's profit for the 1st quarter? I'm guess around $60B.

This speculative bullsh*t has got to stop. We're not talking about a non-essential item here an this affects every single aspect of our society.

My thoughts exactly. Someone is making money hand over fist.

This rolled across my Twitter feed, from a gentleman writing an article on propaganda in the media. The short version is that retired generals acting as network analysts are actually still part of a Pentagon-run propaganda campaign and the "analysis" they give is actually promoting a course of action. One such individual, former General McCaffrey, has stated that we will see "significant escalation" with Iran within 90 days.

Also that Iran will have nuclear weapons within 3 years.

It doesn't matter if Iran will continue to escalate, or if Iran will have nukes in 3 years. What matters is that people believe they will.

Worst of all, McCaffrey sees only one option for Israel: pre-emptive nuclear strike.

The silver lining is that McCaffrey believes it will be Iranian antagonism - not American - that drives us over the brink. So if it comes to that, we can take comfort in the fact that Iran blinked first.

What matters is that people believe they will.

Right -- those f*cking ragheads have the temerity to be living on our oil, so we're obviously justified in telling any lie necessary to attack them.

(note: I do not think they are "f*cking ragheads", that's a parody of the thinking involved in going to war with these guys.)

If Israel nukes Iran, I suspect that will be the opening shot of World War 3.

Today our gasoline prices are going up to 8.05 NIS per liter which is 8.08~$ per gallon. As I may have told you before I listen to a current events program on the radio every morning on the way to work. They were talking about gasoline prices now and in the future. The person that was interviewed (worked as the head of Israel's tax department of the treasury) said it's not unthinkable that the gas will jump to 10nis per liter (9.46$ per gallon) or higher. He also said that if there would be any war in Iran gasoline prices would be the least of our troubles. They talked a lot about taxes (55% of the price of gasoline) and if the government should reduce them so people can cope with the rise in oil prices.

I have a leased car from work for a flat fee with gasoline included so I'm not too worried. I would still go fill up the gas tank before the prices jump as requested by the company which pay all the gasoline bills.

Yesterday I also listen to a radio program about economics on the way back home. They were talking about developing alternative fuels either from renuable sources to fuel electric cars (Beter Place are trying to sell those in Israel but they aren't that attractive) or using Israel's newly found natural gas fields.

Niseg wrote:

He also said that if there would be any war in Iran gasoline prices would be the least of our troubles.

How insightful.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Niseg wrote:

He also said that if there would be any war in Iran gasoline prices would be the least of our troubles.

How insightful.

I'm guessing he's old enough to talk from experience . I can't remember a war with a lot of civilian casualties other than second Lebanon war . in WWII Britain was bomb and I heard the allies weren't total saints either .In the gulf war (Desert Storm) we were hit by some scuds (140~? I forgot the number) but they only killed about 3 people .

What we know we'll get is 22000 rockets from the Hezbollah , 10000 from Hamas and I think Iran got a few hundred longer range missiles. Syria has quiet a few rockets and missiles along with chemical and biological weapons. It's all a matter of weather or not Hamas and Hezbollah would listen to their Iranian masters. Hamas does have some problems due to the fact Iron Dome can pinpoint the launch site and then the air-force/artillery can turn their combatants (if we are lucky) to cinders. The Hezbollah usually use delayed timers so their launchers are fairly safe (the IDF probably l mapped most of their storage sites by now).

It generally depend on what type of rockets they use . Being outside is very inadvisable at these times. Most of us also got gas masks but they are fairly limited in terms of protection. VX gas (Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like all nerve gases ) goes through the skin and I'm not sure we got Atropine this time. Atropine just buys the victim time and you have to be hospitalized after it's administered.

The escalation depend on the Iranian response and the cooperation of their allies. I heard on the radio about how "price in casualties" is not an issue in wars. I still think it's an issue when you want to start one . It still depend on the country. Israel isn't too willing to have civilian casulties while countries like Syria and Iran shoot their own people on the street. When the threat is bigger the military just use more deadly force which usually means more collateral damage.

I still think nothing is going to happen. We'll just have to cope with the fact Iran has nuclear weapons.

I think that something like this could be our answer for Iran. What if we said "f*ck all this nuclear talk! Lets join together and research something that doesnt poison the earth and still produces tons of energy." They could back down from their nuclear program without losing face, everyone gets more energy, everyone looks like a good guy.

Yes, Niseg, we know that they're very scary.

My comment wasn't that the guy didn't know what he's talking about, my comment was that it's pretty damn obvious that gas prices have less of an impact than living in a warzone.

And for the record, not all nerve gases are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Just the ones that kill you by preventing your muscles from relaxing.

Niseg wrote:

I still think nothing is going to happen. We'll just have to cope with the fact Iran has nuclear weapons.

This is what I hope happens; nukes are best left as a deterrent rather than something actively used. If all it results in is a continued cold war between Israel and Iran, that's better than an actual war.

I can't believe that 10+ years of war haven't completely sated the US's appetite for it.

Ballotechnic wrote:

I can't believe that 10+ years of war haven't completely sated the US's appetite for it.

Military. Industrial. Complex. It's a hungry beast and needs continuous feeding.

93_confirmed wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

I can't believe that 10+ years of war haven't completely sated the US's appetite for it.

Military. Industrial. Complex. It's a hungry beast and needs continuous feeding.

We've also had 10+ years of jingoism combined with a media that has done all it can to hide the ramifications of war from the public.

Tanglebones wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

I can't believe that 10+ years of war haven't completely sated the US's appetite for it.

Military. Industrial. Complex. It's a hungry beast and needs continuous feeding.

We've also had 10+ years of jingoism combined with a media that has done all it can to hide the ramifications of war from the public.

I was going to say the opposite. I feel that a statement made by the President saying that we will not go to war (unless something drastic happens) would be met by wide approval from the American population. I think that there are enough vets in the population now that a lot of people are aware of the situation and are tired of unending war.

Nevin73 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

I can't believe that 10+ years of war haven't completely sated the US's appetite for it.

Military. Industrial. Complex. It's a hungry beast and needs continuous feeding.

We've also had 10+ years of jingoism combined with a media that has done all it can to hide the ramifications of war from the public.

I was going to say the opposite. I feel that a statement made by the President saying that we will not go to war (unless something drastic happens) would be met by wide approval from the American population. I think that there are enough vets in the population now that a lot of people are aware of the situation and are tired of unending war.

I hope you're right.

Nevin73 wrote:

I think that there are enough vets in the population now that a lot of people are aware of the situation and are tired of unending war.

2.3 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 9/11. That's only 0.75% of all Americans and barely 1% of voting age Americans.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I think that there are enough vets in the population now that a lot of people are aware of the situation and are tired of unending war.

2.3 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 9/11. That's only 0.75% of all Americans and barely 1% of voting age Americans.

Plus their families, friends, and co-workers. That could be upwards of 10 million Americans or more. That isn't an insignificant number. It doesn't take much to see the impact of war on a human being.

I read a few articles earlier in the week (can't find the link at the moment) that highlighted US Generals who are trying to convince the administration that "if we're going to strike Iran's nuke facilities, then we're going to have to remove the regime". They were arguing that bombing alone (no matter how effective) would only delay would only delay the program and that in order to be successful, we need to remove Ahmadinejad and his government. One of the generals also implied that this would need to be a joint 'shock and awe' bombing campaign. Iraq 2.0?

Also, there's this:

According to the poll, released at a briefing at the Brookings Institution here Wednesday, only about one in five Israelis (19 percent) favour a unilateral strike without U.S. support.

If, on the other hand, Washington gave a green light for an attack, another 42 percent of Israelis would favour it, according to the survey, which was conducted late last week by Israel's Dahaf Institute and has a margin or error of four percent.

They need to man up and handle Iran on their own. Israel has intercontinental and tactical nukes and the military resources to attack so why the f*ck do we need to get involved? We're still trying to finish 10 years of war in their sh!thole neck of the woods, which as far as I know, they didn't provide any support for (soldiers or equipment). I'm tired of of this extremely one-sided ally relationship and at the risk of sounding anti-Semite, I seriously want to pull back all of our financial and military support and let them deal it.

Regardless of what the Republicans say, it's not anti-Semitic to wish that the country wasn't so willing to support a war-mongering ally which is detrimental to our financial and general well-being.

I want to add only this. My father is a vet. He rides the shuttle bus to the VA and now he frequently rides with Iraq and Afghanistan vets with missing limbs, etc. He was surprised about the frequency with which he was now running into wounded vets in his rural home.

93_confirmed wrote:

I read a few articles earlier in the week (can't find the link at the moment) that highlighted US Generals who are trying to convince the administration that "if we're going to strike Iran's nuke facilities, then we're going to have to remove the regime". They were arguing that bombing alone (no matter how effective) would only delay would only delay the program and that in order to be successful, we need to remove Ahmadinejad and his government. One of the generals also implied that this would need to be a joint 'shock and awe' bombing campaign. Iraq 2.0?

Not exactly. There's a difference between what's involved in achieving a goal like ending a country's nuclear program and what's involved in building a friendly country so gas is fifty cents a gallon.

We're still trying to finish 10 years of war in their sh!thole neck of the woods, which as far as I know, they didn't provide any support for (soldiers or equipment). I'm tired of of this extremely one-sided ally relationship and at the risk of sounding anti-Semite, I seriously want to pull back all of our financial and military support and let them deal it.

There is no support from Israel because we really don't want it--Israel is a lightening rod for hostility in that part of the world and whatever support they could give would be outweighed by the baggage they would bring to the situation.

DSGamer wrote:

I want to add only this. My father is a vet. He rides the shuttle bus to the VA and now he frequently rides with Iraq and Afghanistan vets with missing limbs, etc. He was surprised about the frequency with which he was now running into wounded vets in his rural home.

Is he surprised that there are so many injured, that they've been allowed to come home, or that they're getting VA benefits?

LobsterMobster wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I want to add only this. My father is a vet. He rides the shuttle bus to the VA and now he frequently rides with Iraq and Afghanistan vets with missing limbs, etc. He was surprised about the frequency with which he was now running into wounded vets in his rural home.

Is he surprised that there are so many injured, that they've been allowed to come home, or that they're getting VA benefits?

Funny.

He made the comment to me because of what was being discussed earlier, this idea that the consequences of the wars is largely hidden from the US population. So he was taken aback by suddenly seeing so many vets from recent wars. Not sure what changed exactly.

The Telegraph reports that Netanyahu plans to issue an ultimatum about attacking Iran when he meets with Obama Monday.

Two years ago, Barack Obama reportedly left Benjamin Netanyahu to kick his heels in a White House anteroom, a snub delivered to show the president's irritation over Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank. In May, the Israeli prime minister struck back, publicly scolding his purse-lipped host for the borders he proposed of a future Palestinian state.

When the two men meet in Washington on Monday, Mr Obama will find his guest once more at his most combative. But this time, perhaps as never before, it is the Israeli who has the upper hand.

Exuding confidence, Mr Netanyahu effectively brings with him an ultimatum, demanding that unless the president makes a firm pledge to use US military force to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb, Israel may well take matters into its own hands within months.

The threat is not an idle one. According to sources close to the Israeli security establishment, military planners have concluded that never before has the timing for a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities been so auspicious.

It's hard to imagine an ally who could be less helpful to US interests, regionally or globally.

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

Trading a US military strike on Iran in exchange for the Israelis to stop stealing land from the Palestinians? That's a horrible deal.

He should tell Netanyahu that Israel can do whatever they want, but the US will leave them out to dry if they launch an attack.

Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

I think the problem is modern diplomacy, the UN, etc. It used to be that when you won a war, you ran the other population out of town, that land was yours. In the case of Israel, they did win the war, but they weren't allowed to finish the job. Now you have this multi generational seething hatred on their doorstep. Especially since it's being funded by neighboring states who could have taken the losing side in and integrated them. Hezbollah and Hamas are just both proxy groups to fight an ongoing war against Israel, everyone knows it, no one really cares.

I really don't like war, but if you're going to go to war, you may as well finish what you begin.

bandit0013 wrote:
Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

I think the problem is modern diplomacy, the UN, etc. It used to be that when you won a war, you ran the other population out of town, that land was yours. In the case of Israel, they did win the war, but they weren't allowed to finish the job. Now you have this multi generational seething hatred on their doorstep. Especially since it's being funded by neighboring states who could have taken the losing side in and integrated them. Hezbollah and Hamas are just both proxy groups to fight an ongoing war against Israel, everyone knows it, no one really cares.

I really don't like war, but if you're going to go to war, you may as well finish what you begin.

I'm pretty sure it was the defeat of the folks who brought us the Final Solution that pretty much put an end to that paradigm.

The irony. It burns.

Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Robear wrote:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

I think the problem is modern diplomacy, the UN, etc. It used to be that when you won a war, you ran the other population out of town, that land was yours. In the case of Israel, they did win the war, but they weren't allowed to finish the job. Now you have this multi generational seething hatred on their doorstep. Especially since it's being funded by neighboring states who could have taken the losing side in and integrated them. Hezbollah and Hamas are just both proxy groups to fight an ongoing war against Israel, everyone knows it, no one really cares.

I really don't like war, but if you're going to go to war, you may as well finish what you begin.

I'm pretty sure it was the defeat of the folks who brought us the Final Solution that pretty much put an end to that paradigm.

The irony. It burns.

The Germans tried to occupy to much land. If they had stopped earlier, history tells us that Britain and the US would have left them the fark alone and most of continental Europe would be speaking German today.

The fundamental problem is that the Old Testament is not a land deed, but the Israelis insist on treating it as one.

Oh, and:

If Obama could bargain that for a halt to building in the West Bank, I'd say "Job well done". (I don't think a withdrawal is in the cards.)

Israel would keep that deal until about five minutes after bombing stopped.