Iran Nuclear Crisis Is About DU Anti-Tank Rounds
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
:P
S
Sigma6
Guest
He's not talking about Martial Law. He's talking about Civil War.
S
Sigma6
Guest
You're right. There's no precedent for it. There's never been one before, so we have no real reason to believe that there ever will be one. Similarly, a Bolivarian revolution in South America has no precedent, and so it's unlikely that such an event is forthcoming. Also, America's history of astutely avoiding insurgency wars of choice since the lesson of Vietnam is heartening, so I don't think we can expect one of those either.
Ruth
The Living Force
It got me thinking of that recent interview Bush gave and when asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and he replied "nothing".
Iran may be just the distraction the US Government needs to take public attention away from what's been going on in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if they 'used' some manipulated made up excuse to attack Iran, just so people don't scrutinise them so much in Iraq. Besides, war is good for (some people's) business.
S
Sigma6
Guest
"This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." -Richard Perle (then Chairman of the Defense Policy Board) December 12, 2002. He's also one of the drafters of 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the 'Bush Doctrine'.
He's one of the priviledged few who've written the plan we're all carrying out, and he's been referred to as 'the Pentagon's 500 pound gorilla'.
Basically, you're half right, but ultimately, I don't think these fellows have any intention of drawing attention *away* from 'what's going on in Iraq', (because they *want it to get very, very bad there for American troops*) any more than to create the illusion that they're doing their best to curtail the developing instability. Their objective is to make the situation as bad as possible in order to break the public's 'cringe factor' over total war and their squeamishness about casualties (Both American and Iraqi).
For what they want, a draft and the ability to arrest internal dissidents are absolutely necessary. I think it's a mistake to see Iran (and Syria, and Lebanon, and on, and on) as anything but a carefully laid-out plan. Everything else (even the chatting with the UN, since Bolton just told them that 'concensus in the Security Council is unnecessary with regards to Iran') is just a smokescreen, even the 'apparance of incompetence' everyone is always going on about.
They know exactly what they're doing, and they're doing exactly what they've said they were going to do. Their 'business' as you put it, is complete, all-out, total war. (and yes, it's very good for their pocketbooks, but that's more than beside the point)
Will America stand for that? I don't know.
He's one of the priviledged few who've written the plan we're all carrying out, and he's been referred to as 'the Pentagon's 500 pound gorilla'.
Basically, you're half right, but ultimately, I don't think these fellows have any intention of drawing attention *away* from 'what's going on in Iraq', (because they *want it to get very, very bad there for American troops*) any more than to create the illusion that they're doing their best to curtail the developing instability. Their objective is to make the situation as bad as possible in order to break the public's 'cringe factor' over total war and their squeamishness about casualties (Both American and Iraqi).
For what they want, a draft and the ability to arrest internal dissidents are absolutely necessary. I think it's a mistake to see Iran (and Syria, and Lebanon, and on, and on) as anything but a carefully laid-out plan. Everything else (even the chatting with the UN, since Bolton just told them that 'concensus in the Security Council is unnecessary with regards to Iran') is just a smokescreen, even the 'apparance of incompetence' everyone is always going on about.
They know exactly what they're doing, and they're doing exactly what they've said they were going to do. Their 'business' as you put it, is complete, all-out, total war. (and yes, it's very good for their pocketbooks, but that's more than beside the point)
Will America stand for that? I don't know.
Now compare to this...
Our "leaders" serve only one master. Zionism is a plague upon mankind. For those who haven't read this book yet, if accurate, it's no wonder "Jesus" said of the Pharisee's "ye are the synagogue of satan".Douglass Reed (Controversy of Zion) said:
Kris
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Why not, Beau, it's happened before?
beau said:
Yes, it has. I don't know, I just don't see people fighting against each other in any organized way. Things could be so chaotic that you may have a domestic enemy that the military would be called in to fight, but I wouldn't go so far as saying there would be anything as dramatic as a Civil War like the previous one. If so, it would be set up by the PTB in my opinion.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Look at Iraq, though. When things slip into chaos and the economy collapses things can happen that cannot be imagined. I agree though that that particular scenario is not likely, it's almost too organized, but if the central power collapses, it is probably too large a country to hold together. Or, segments of the military could rebel against the neocons leading to extreme chaos. A civil war could result only if different segments of the ruling class decide to fight each other, IMO. If the ruling class stays united, then your scenario is more likely.
Actually for a plausible fictional depiction of such a situation in the near future, I recommend Bob Dylan's recent movie, Masked and Anonymous. In that movie, California looked like El Salvador, and there was a disastrous civil war, with banana-republic style dictatorships in different regions of North America.
Actually for a plausible fictional depiction of such a situation in the near future, I recommend Bob Dylan's recent movie, Masked and Anonymous. In that movie, California looked like El Salvador, and there was a disastrous civil war, with banana-republic style dictatorships in different regions of North America.
beau said:
