Reply With Quote
They are...sort of. Iran eventually wants a Shi'ite majority government in Iraq to succeed (completing their "Shia Crescent"), just not until insurgency and civil war/strife/sectarian/whatever extracts a couple more pounds of flesh from the U.S.
Why would Iran invade Iraq to attack us? Why don't they pull up a chair on the border and watch us evaporate?
They are...sort of. Iran eventually wants a Shi'ite majority government in Iraq to succeed (completing their "Shia Crescent"), just not until insurgency and civil war/strife/sectarian/whatever extracts a couple more pounds of flesh from the U.S.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 09-19-2006 at 10:59 PM.
Who said anything about it being on a whim? That's your characterization.
Tell me, what changed between 1998 and 2003 with respect to our knowledge of Iraq's WMD programs and their intents? And, since many things changed, not the least of which was that Iraq continued firing on coalition forces in the no-fly zone and that he established a relationship with global terrorists, and that we were attacked by global terrorists, I'd say carrying forward with Clinton's stated policy of regime change was appropriate...even if by force.
Our knowledge got worse, so we just started going with hunches.Tell me, what changed between 1998 and 2003 with respect to our knowledge of Iraq's WMD programs and their intents?that just gave us a chance to knock out another radar site.And, since many things changed, not the least of which was that Iraq continued firing on coalition forces in the no-fly zoneTHAT WAS NOT SADDAM!and that we were attacked by global terrorists
October surprise?
Time magazine headlines
.The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a..
Time
The Neocons may be worried that too many Republican Senators and Congress-men are in trouble in the Nov. election and if they can't steal it, they may not have the votes to have congress authorize cash for a war with Iran.
A- ing-men!
The best idea yet.
Build some refinerees post haste, ramp up ALL domestic production possible, encourage Saudi, like you said, alternative fuels - huge taxation on gas, as well, would shrink demand. As the world's largest consumer, we could certainly affect Iran as a producer.
Country doesn't have the stomach for it, IMO.
A refinery takes 2-4 years to build.........we'll do something else stupid far before we have the time to build any more of those.
You want to get rid of the regime?
Kill 'em with kindness. This is a case,as with many things, where moral authority trumps military might.
Oil prices depend ALOT on future predictions of what is going to happen; if the good old US of A was SERIOUS about it, we could erect refineries faster than conventional wisdom suggests, and the price of a barrel would be affected prior to completion to some degree. There also is no rush, right?
As we build our refineries, punch more domestic holes in the ground, build wind-farms & put solar panels on our homes, tighten up CAFE standards (and impose them on long-haulers), we are being benevolent to Iran the whole time, the combination of the two strategies, focussed on the largely non-ideological population of Iran would have more of an effect, and frankly a quicker one, than military conflict.
why is erecting oil refineries in the path to an Apollo-program of oil conservation?
The whole point is to reduce fuel consumption through more efficient engines, smaller engines (aka, V8's in every cylinder), taxing transport fuel heavily, taxing poor mileage vehicles.
All we'll hear is "Poor, weak little America CAN'T do " conserving transport fuel aka keep the oilco's rolling in 10s of $Bs of profits.
I thought the purpose was to lower the price of a barrel of oil. Isn't that what you said. Alternative fuels and conservation will help, but more domestic production will, as well. Unless you have a different agenda....
But OPEC can just cut production and we get stuck with a bunch of idle refineries.
"lower the price of a barrel of oil. "
yes, 70% of US oil goes to transport. Reducing US demand for foreign oil should be downward pressure on the price. It's the best we can do, since the US demand isn't the controlling factor.
More domestic production to replace foreign oil only puts off the only solution, which greatly reduced consumption. It's the kind of BS, short-sighted, high-profit solution we'll hear from the oilcos through their Repug mouthpieces.
Calif. sues 6 carmakers in global warming suit
Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:59pm ET165
Business News
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California filed a global warming lawsuit on Wednesday against Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and three other automakers, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.
The lawsuit also names Chrysler Motors Corp., the U.S. arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler, and the North American units of Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..
It also charges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming and harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous state in the United States.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quan ies of carbon dioxide."
Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.
The lawsuit comes after California passed legislation supported by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that requires the state to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. California was the first state to mandate reduction of greenhouse gases.
California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.
California is stupid. I go a little bit too far out of way to avoid any sort of Californian influence in my life (barring movies, I hate television).
That's probably half the reason for this lawsuit.California has also issued rules to force automakers to cut tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. Enforcement of those rules is being delayed by litigation from automakers.
At the UN today, Chavez warns Bush against attacking Iran or Venezuela, says oil would e to $200 barrel. I don't see our need for oil going away anytime soon but I'd love to see alternative sources found just so we could see these countries go broke. The ONLY leverage they have is their oil...period!
Why not sue all califonian's who drive said vehicles?
Good get.
A 'moderate' exageration by Chavez as was most of his speech at the U.N.. What does calling Dubya 'the devil' really accomplish?Chavez warns Bush against attacking Iran or Venezuela, says oil would e to $200 barrel
Although his line about the speaker's podium still smelling like sulfur was classic!
"calling Dubya 'the devil' really accomplish"
Same thing that dubya/ head/Repugs calling Sadam a "threat" accomplished. The rabble and sheeple will believe him, out of childish "repsect for the office of president". "He's president, democratically elected, he can't be wrong, we must give him the benefit of the doubt and "support our troops"."
Get ready to rebel...
Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday September 21, 2006
RawstoryThe Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY.
The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning.
"The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting."
We are going blindly into this war without a clue of the reprecussions it will mean to our selves and our sons and daugthers.
And ourselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
