patrick.net

I think Iran going nuclear trumps the war machine. Remember, nuclear states cannot be attacked by conventional weapons. Cold wars form. syria goes under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. whose gonna attack them at that point?

You think Israel will keep it's syrian attacks up, with iranian nukes pointed at it?
Once the umbrella forms, the doors wide open for hezbollah to flourish without threat of israeli attack.

The war machine sells conventional weapons. More states under the nuclear umbrella of others will deter conventional attacks, thus the war machine loses customers.

Better for the war machine to eliminate the possibility of nuclear umbrellas forming...top priority is to take out Iran. Syria is just a stepping stone to this objective.

curious2 says

War always has a constituency, because it involves so much money and power. The worse the strategy, and the more complicated and vulnerable the logistics, the more money and power the war can make. So yes, after failing to reach Iran from next door, on both sides, of course we should "a different angle" through Syria instead.

It doesn't fix anything. It is not designed to.
It is designed to legitimately get our foot ( and our allies ) in the door so we can gain more influence and justify further attacks down the line, this time hitting arms convoys going from Iran to Syria, or taking out some syrian leadership 'accidently'. Once we start the bombing, we just start changing targets.

Granted if they go through the russian port, we have no influence there. Maybe the higher ups are privy to intelligence that the majority of arms are not going through that russian port.

Straw Man says

I fail to see how dropping couple of Tomahawks on Damask fixes the problems of open eastern border and free passage through Iraq territory as well as Russian cargo ships able to freely go into their Tartus naval base.

They won't win if Iran goes nuclear, and provides the umbrella to syria and other hostile states in the region.

Robert Sproul says

War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.

Raytheon, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Honeywell, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and DynCorp always win.

We support your 'War of terror!' ;)

Robert Sproul says

War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.

What's the old saw? A war during a recession brings recovery; a war during prosperity brings recession?

Anyway, it was a crackpot theory my 8th grade US history teacher proposed.

When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...
Yeah, this company or that one will prosper due to war in this decade...that's the immediate short term effect and one to bloviate on.

However, the people in charge have to grapple with the limited proven world oil reserves, and who will be in control of it. Most likely that country/corporation will have the world by the balls looking 40-50 years ahead. And by then there will be no military intervention as the reserves will be guarded by nukes.

Now is the time to sow the seeds for controlling that supply.

Recent Dow day is Wednesday, August 28, 2013 __ Level is 94.7

The United States of America is in one of the most geographically defensible positions of any nation in the world, ever! Isolated from other powers by thousands of miles of ocean, hedged in securely between friendly countries to north and south, and separated from its enemies by half a world, it truly has nothing to fear from invasion. In fact, it has to import it's invaders, calling them immigrants, from countries that hate us (hello Arabs, Persians, and Palestinians!).
But that's essential because it gives the bloated department of homeland security something to do, as well as the NSA and all other spy agencies. They must work hard to keep a tabs on all the freshly minted Americans of questionable origin.

Since we are so impregnable to straight invasion, and yet so strong in arms manufacture, we will always have to make wars to keep our military industrial machine churning. The wars won't come to us, we have to manufacture these crises, preferably half a world away, so we can keep selling arms.
It's the curse of being so secure.

SoftShell says

When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...

Yes, it would be wise, but it isn't how things work. Wisdom would be using biotech to make foreign oil irrelevant, but that doesn't get campaign contributions from ExxonMobil, Raytheon, etc. The Capitol is an auction where entrenched patronage networks bid for more revenue and power. It's bipartisan: each party has its own patronage base, and the centrists take from both sides; PhRMA+NRA=yet another example of how politics makes strange bedfellows.

Nukes bring peace. Lack of nukes is an opportunity for the war machine. The world would be safer if Iran had the bomb.

Quigley, most defensible, really?

A taxicab driver from Pakistan told me he walked across the border in the desert southwest. Jumped ship from the freighter he worked on in a Mexican port.

In the hands of sane people.
In the hands of religious fanatics, all bets are off... ( Iran )

Quigley says

Nukes bring peace.

Wisdom would be to pursue both angles, proven energy sources and possible alternative energy sources.

The Biotech angle is being invested in heavily

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsreport2012.pdf

But it is not proven that this will provide enough energy to fuel the future. You have to keep your hand in current proven energy sources (oil) in case the biotech angle doesn't pan out...

curious2 says

SoftShell says

When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...

Yes, it would be wise, but it isn't how things work. Wisdom would be using biotech to make foreign oil irrelevant,

SoftShell says

religious fanatics

The fuckers, and after all we have done for them.
I wish the Shah could have ramped up to whatever brutality was necessary to maintain power, so that our resource extraction could have proceeded without this bullshit.

Oh...you mean like Assad and nerve gas?? I see.....

Robert Sproul says

I wish the Shah could have ramped up to whatever brutality was necessary to maintain power,

Straw Man says

B.A.C.A.H. says

A taxicab driver from Pakistan told me he walked across the border in the desert southwest.

Try this with an army and see what happens.

I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J2LG-ASco6o

Straw Man says

we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.

SoftShell says

Assad and nerve gas?? I see.....

Rebel factions are splintering, infighting, and losing ground. Assad is in no danger of losing at this point.
So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….

Sorry, this lie is one to many. I don't think the American people believe it either, if that is what accounts for their overwhelming ennui re: Syria.

No...apparently you don't.
But thanks for playing....

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-western-intervention-draws-nearer-a-918667.html

a well-known poison gas expert voiced his suspicion in an off-the-record conversation that minimal use of chemical weapons was seen as the best way get the West used to its deployment

Robert Sproul says

So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….

Straw Man says

B.A.C.A.H. says

I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.

You can't carry enough WMD on your back to make a significant difference. And once you have number of carriers in tens at least one of them is bound to be caught with his load prompting the border to be sealed for real (it's not as difficult as our pro-amnesty politicians tells us, if your really mean to do it). Anyhow, what Quigley meant by defensible is that we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.

I hope you are right. A few million illegals already here is proof till now that it can be done.

Ah yes, Red Dawn, the documentary that dared report what the MSM didn't want you to see. Those brave heroes, Charlie Sheen and C.T. Howell and the late Patrick Swayze, saved us all.

Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:

?1

It wouldn't take millions of persons. Millions of nano grams of certain contraband substances would be quite effective.

Straw Man, if you say so.

For all we know, the terrorists with their vials already walked across our most defensible border; standing by awaiting instructions.

So you would bet on a marshmellowman versus a fire breathing anything??
Ever go camping??

curious2 says

Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:

SoftShell says

But thanks for playing....

Ouch. You play internet too rough.

"Thanks for playing" That's what all the Internet B Boys were slinging in about 2001

Well, anyway, I guess if your expert is in Spiegel, Check and Mate!

Sorry. Didn't know you were that sensitive....

Robert Sproul says

SoftShell says

But thanks for playing....

Ouch. You play internet too rough.

Not my expert.
Just backing up common sense conclusions.

Robert Sproul says

Well, anyway, I guess if your expert is in Spiegel, Check and Mate!

SoftShell says

So you would bet on a marshmellowman versus a fire breathing anything??

Ever go camping??

If I were betting my own money, no, but government is increasingly about making everyone buy stuff that no rational person would buy if given a free choice. I wouldn't buy multi-million dollar ordnance to drop on Syria, either, but here we are.

Makes sense. Why else would US get involved into this war if there is no financial incentive?

bgamall4 says

Quit being stupid and diverting from what we know about 9/11. What we know we know and 93 doesn't impact that at all.

= words of a real "Troofer".... So the '93 bombing didn't matter because a 'neo-con' wasn't president. Ahhh, OK, got it....

And this week, we'll dovetail BG's hypocricy w/ Biden's and Obama's 2007 speeches on how Bush didn't get UN approval to go to war, somehow missing the most obviously important fact of getting Congress' approval, which I doubt Obama will ask for when he starts a'bombing.... Hmmm, let's see. Direct or imminent threat to the US? nope. Where's Code Pink when you need 'em? Oh yeah, I forgot; a democrat is in the White House. My bad. Their silence is deafening...

SoftShell says

Just backing up common sense conclusions.

This is one of the phrases that you hear a lot from the credulous as they lap up the provided narrative and regurgitate it as "common sense" conclusions.

ttsmyf says

Recent Dow day is Wednesday, August 28, 2013 __ Level is 94.7

You Big Bad Spammer you! ...can't you tell you're starting to get under others skin...
But I won't be fooled!

Bubbabear says

ttsmyf says

Recent Dow day is Wednesday, August 28, 2013 __ Level is 94.7

You Big Bad Spammer you! ...can't you tell you're starting to get under others skin...

But I won't be fooled!

These two overwhelmingly important USA track records are serial herd behaviors, replete with the coming & going of irrationality.
http://www.showrealhist.com/RHandRD.html
Timing was VERY important! Keeping these histories out of sight of the people FOOLS the people!
CITIZEN ASK YOURSELF: Do you know folks who had kids to have somebody to sell high to?

bgamall4 says

but Iran has not invaded anyone for hundreds of years

Hold up now.
That is not part of our pre-packaged, pre-approved, opinion forming, information.
We are looking to "back up some common sense conclusions" ala the great common sense slingers Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice in '03.
Some good ol' common sense that a guy can believe in.

It makes it sound like the Jewish people have a superiority complex ?

Its Britain's fault, no it's Israelis' fault, no it's the neocons fault, no wait it's Bush's fault....anyone but the Commander and Chiefs' fail if we go to war with Syria. This is a serious case of denial, even for the Obama's biggest of fanboys. Have you thought about seeing a psychologist(if you aren't currently seeing one already).

that was then. this is now.
I base my opinion not on talking heads at fox, but on the public statements of the leadership of Iran.
things change.

bgamall4 says

SoftShell says

In the hands of sane people.

In the hands of religious fanatics, all bets are off... ( Iran )

I used to believe that, but Iran has not invaded anyone for hundreds of years. They just don't do it. Iraq invaded Iran.

The provided narrative is coming from the leadership of Iran.
To sit, look at them and do nothing as they ramp up to 54000 spinning centrifuges is to perform a Neville Chamberlain redux.

It's not the neocon talking heads spouting irrationally about the holocaust, proclaiming the near future destruction of Israel, coupled with world domination of the oil industry.

But that is what you get with today's 'internet B grade liberalism', a bunch of whacko drugged up pussies intent on burying their heads in their crackpipes denying that there is, and always will be people in power on earth intent on dominating and/or destroying you and your country.

And when the facts don't match their version of nirvana, they blame the messengers. Yes Robert, you are right. It's O'Reilly's fault that the centrifuges are spinning at ultrasonic speed as the cracked crusty sandblasted fingernails of the iranian worker assemble and activate the dogs of war. ( disclaimer: another 2001 internet B boy phrase )

Robert Sproul says

as they lap up the provided narrative and regurgitate it as "common sense" conclusions.

Why don't the jews leave those fun loving peaceful arabs alone already.

curious2 says

I wouldn't buy multi-million dollar ordnance to drop on Syria, either, but here we are.

I wouldn't either.

But remember, our whole economy is based on war. It has been since the end of WW2.

War creates jobs. And profits.