BS: WW3

Subject: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:44 AM

WEll what do you think ?? econamy is stopping around the world,
Iran is gettin N-clear weapons in 6 months , taliban are only 100 km away from the N-clear area in Pakistan .

Nice : if we want to think this way .

Dont forget the WW2 came , by the crisis in 1929

.

Kv SKarpi .
P.s , this is just a wandering thread .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:07 AM

Thanks for that Skarpi ...

I mean it'll be easy for you watching all those missiles flying over your head on their way to somewhere else ...

... Maybe nows the time to start reinvesting in icelandic banks ...

... and buying some icelandic property ...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:15 AM

I predicted a war involving WMD by both sides, between the US or an ally and other parties, by August, 2009, IF the Democrats won the election ( this was BEFORE Obama was a candidate).


No reason yet to change my prediction.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: 3refs
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:59 AM

Could be more of a reality than most would believe! Funny how a good war can wipe out a lot of debt. Throw in a pandemic and maybe the power mongers will get their 500-750 million global population they're looking for.

Wait for most of the combatants to get fully engaged with each other, then...........

"Beware The Red Hoard".

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 May 09 - 09:01 AM

I think there's always a chance that one or two nukes could go off somewhere in the world as a result of terrorists. But a full scale WW3 - "On The Beach" "Alas Babalon" "The Day After" type of warfare - I really doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:19 AM

You forgot "Level Seven"

I think it will be limited, but cannot be sure-

Postulated scenario- Iran gives a nuke to Hezboallah, which sets it off in Israel, killing 50-75% of the Israelis and about 60-80% of the Palestinians. Israel reacts by wiping out Iran.

Iranian Cities and towns:
Rank   City   Province   Population   
1 Tehran Tehran 7,705,036
2 Mashhad Razavi Khorasan 2,410,800
3 Esfahān Esfahān 1,583,609
4 Tabriz East Azarbaijan 1,378,935
5 Karaj Tehran 1,377,450
6 Shiraz Fars 1,204,882
7 Ahvaz Khūzestān 969,843
8 Qom Qom 951,918
9 Kermanshah Kermanshah 784,602
10 Orumieh West Azarbaijan 577,307
11 Zahedan Sistan and Baluchestan 552,706
12 Rasht Gīlān 551,161
13 Kerman Kermān 496,684
14 Hamedan Hamadān 473,149
15 Arak Markazi 438,338
16 Yazd Yazd 423,006
17 Ardabil Ardabil 412,669
18 Bandar Abbas Hormozgān 367,508
19 Eslamshahr Tehran 357,171
20 Qazvin Qazvīn 349,821
21 Zanjan Zanjan 341,801
22 Khorramabad Lorestān 328,544
23 Sanandaj Kurdistan 311,446
24 Gorgan Golestān 269,226
25 Sari Māzandarān 259,084
26 Kashan Esfahān 248,789
27 Golestan Tehran 231,882
28 Shahr-e Qods Tehran 229,354
29 Malard Tehran 228,673
30 Dezful Khūzestān 228,507
31 Borujerd Lorestān 227,547
32 Khomeinishahr Esfahān 218,737
33 Abadan Khūzestān 217,988
34 Varamin Tehran 208,569
35 Sabzevar Razavi Khorasan 208,172
36 Najafabad Esfahān 206,114
37 Nishapur Razavi Khorasan 205,972
38 Babol Māzandarān 198,636
39 Amol Māzandarān 197,470
40 Shahriar Tehran 189,120
41 Saveh Markazi 179,009
42 Khoy West Azarbaijan 178,708
43 Qa'em Shahr Māzandarān 174,246
44 Gharchak Tehran 173,832
45 Bojnourd North Khorasan 172,772
46 Sirjan Kermān 167,014
47 Bushehr Bushehr 161,674
48 Birjand South Khorasan 157,848
49 Ilam Īlām 155,289
50 Malayer Hamadān 153,748
51 Bukan West Azarbaijan 149,340
52 Maragheh East Azarbaijan 146,405
53 Rafsanjan Kermān 136,388
54 Nasimshahr Tehran 135,824
55 Mahabad West Azarbaijan 133,324
56 Saqqez Kurdistan 131,349
57 Zabol Sistan and Baluchestan 130,642
58 Gonbad-e Qabus Golestān 127,167
59 Shahrood Semnān 126,916
60 Shahrekord Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari 126,746
61 Pakdasht Tehran 126,281
62 Shahinshahr Eşfahān Province 126,070
63 Semnan Semnān 124,999
64 Khorramshahr Khūzestān 123,866
65 Marvdasht Fars 123,858
66 Andimeshk Khūzestān 119,422
67 Torbat-e Heydarieh Razavi Khorasan 119,360
68 Marand East Azarbaijan 114,165
69 Miandoab West Azarbaijan 112,933
70 Mahshahr Khūzestān 109,927
71 Bandar-e Anzali Gīlān 109,687
72 Shahreza Eşfahān 108,299
73 Masjed Soleyman Khūzestān 106,121
74 Izeh Khūzestān 103,695
75 Jahrom Fars 103,023
76 Dorood Lorestān 100,528


And Israel is estimated to have 80-200 nuclear weapons... So they may take out a few other places, as well.





Does Russia or China step in, or does the threat of US action keep them out of it? THAT will determine if it remains a "limited" nuclear war...


Or perhaps it will be N. Korea, or a Taliban controlled Pakistan. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:36 AM

Simon Jenkins' view in "The Guardian":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/07/gordon-brown-thatcher-blair-election

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:40 AM

I've read Level 7 but it's been years. I havn't been able to find it in my boxes of books. But it's there. My new favorite is "World Made by Hand" by James Howard Kunstler. The protagonist is an old time fiddle player in upstate NewYork. Two nukes destroy LA and DC. After that all oil shipments are stopped to the US and the electric grid goes down. People have to go back to farming and the barder system.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:45 AM

Iceland will be the new Industrial Power- with geothermal energy, it will be able to HAVE industry when the rest of us are trying to get by on local resources.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:13 AM

Is there a serious point to a list of Israeli towns? Or do you just love copying & pasting stuff?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 09 - 12:09 PM

"I think it will be limited, but cannot be sure- " beardedbruce


You're damn right, bb, you can't be SURE. One of the silliest statements I've ever heard.

(This is worthy of the strangest rantings of a specific other Mudcatter.)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 01:41 PM

BillD,


Let me 'splain it to you:


That was a list of ******Iranian****** towns- demonstrating that the number of towns/cities with over 100,000 population is exceeded by the LOWEST estimate of Israeli nuclear bombs.

1. try reading before commenting


"Iranian Cities and towns:"
(followed by list of cities and towns)

"And Israel is estimated to have 80-200 nuclear weapons... So they may take out a few other places, as well."

These statements were in support of my comment "Israel reacts by wiping out Iran."

Understand now?


2. Is there a serious point to your comment? Or do you just love jumping in and making fun of a serious point?





Ebbie,

By saying I was not sure I meant to indicate that I have no information that, should such a scenario occur, the other named countries would NOT interfere and spread the conflict. Look at 1914, and tell me how it would not be ths same situation- (where do you think China gets it's oil from?) No-one INTENDED that it become a world conflict- but no-one took steps to keep it from becoming one, either.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: gnu
Date: 08 May 09 - 02:28 PM

Pressing buttons?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 May 09 - 03:27 PM

Just don't press the big red one.....

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 09 - 04:39 PM

"1. try reading before commenting"

yeah..mea culpa..I was rushing. I just carelessly assumed you would be posting Israeli stuff...the names didn't ring a bell as specifically Iranian.

Let ME 'splain why I took issue at all...

Why would anyone post the detailed list of towns whose names mean little to 99.257% of us, instead of saying simply "There are "X" many places in Iran of "Y" size, therefore..." unless you just like C&P.
Also, the whole exercise seems like pointless speculation about VERY unlikely scenarios designed to push someone's buttons.

*shrug* ...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:05 PM

Well I just think the whoke thing is weird.

BB, if this isn't just off the wall humour then you really have me worried.

Are you really itching for Armageddon that bad?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:10 PM

I've just read through that list again and grappled with the reality of the point you're making.

You're sick Brucie.

It really colours all that you have said about Gaza with a different shade.

And it is totally consistent with your approach on that subject so far.

I wonder who in the israeli administration share your apparent fetish for destruction and revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:12 PM

Why would a democrat president in the white house have any correlation with a nuclear war happening?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:37 PM

Because, Lox, a Democratic president would simply not have the balls to nuke the %#@& out of Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran before they can nuke us first! And Bruce predicts this within the next 90 days. So while you genuflect in contrition over having not elected Jon McCain, go ahead and kiss yer ass goodbye!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:39 PM

BillD,

"Why would anyone post the detailed list of towns whose names mean little to 99.257% of us, instead of saying simply "There are "X" many places in Iran of "Y" size, therefore..." unless you just like C&P."

Perhaps because when I post statements of the sort you suggest I am taken to task for not providing the accurate infortion: When I do post it, I get comments like yours.

Heads I lose, tails you win.



Lox,

"
Why would a democrat president in the white house have any correlation with a nuclear war happening? "

As I explained some time ago, the election of a Democrat in the US, because of the percieved ( NOT actual) tendency towards not taking action when it would be effective ( of members of that party) would lead those who want to pressure the US into taking action that, they believe, would NOT cause us to react , but in reality are over the line and the US will react to.


"Are you really itching for Armageddon that bad? "

Not at all- those here that make fun of any serious discussion of the topic seem far more likely to encourage it, by not taking steps to avoid it.

Let me make it a simple statement: Nuclear war is a bad thing. \

BUT it can't be prevented by hiding one's head in the sand and saying it is a bad thing- the actions that are taken will control whether it occurs. I wish to avoid having a nuclear war- It is a pity that so many others will say that and then act in such a manner as to greatly increase the chance of one happening.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 05:42 PM

Excuse me, that should be "Loxie"

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:01 PM

Ah yes - I see ...

... and you have the recipe for avoiding nuclear war ...

... leastways, Bush did, McCain would have and The Israeli Administration no doubt do too.

And knowing exactly how many Millions of innocent Iranian men women and children Israel could kill in a revenge attack is an ingredient in that recipe ...

... I prefer Nigella.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:01 PM

Loxie,

I think you may not have read my scenario:

"Iran gives a nuke to Hezboallah, which sets it off in Israel, killing 50-75% of the Israelis and about 60-80% of the Palestinians."


You might be happy with those numbers, but they get me upset. BOTH sets.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:04 PM

BillD: "the names didn't ring a bell as specifically Iranian."

beardedbruce:"Iranian Cities and towns:
Rank   City   Province   Population   
1 Tehran Tehran 7,705,036 "



Like you bothered to even read them.....

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:08 PM

Ah yes - I wondered if you were going to go down that route.

Because I commented on one part of your fantasy and not on another part therefore what exactly?

I read the whole of your twisted scenario and it struck me that you spent a lot of time giving precise details of the Iranian victims, while you were happy to talk percentages of Israelis and Palestinians.

Then you spoke of the numbers of Israeli weapons in relation to the millions of Iranians on your long and detailed list and with the apparent zeal of an 8 year old with a can of insecticide drooling over an ants nest you imagined the possible devastation of those people.

I find that utterly lacking in taste and humanity and I've gone off you.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:16 PM

Such a war is certainly possible, specially if the world's economic problems stagnate or get even worse.   There is definitely the risk of war, because politicians tend to engineer wars (large or small) when they can't figure out how else to deal with a problem of falling domestic popularity or a declining economy.

I make no predictions, however, regarding the probabllity of it. That will depend on:

1. the intelligence of world leaders
2. their sense of moral responsibility
3. and how ruthless they are...

There are some leaders who worry me more than others in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:17 PM

I scanned the list...the basic names meant nothing.

"...when I post statements of the sort you suggest I am taken to task for not providing the accurate infortion:"

suggestion: wait until asked for it. (perhaps a note saying "I can provide details." Too easy?

I surrender... you have a taste for tossing out "data", as if piles of data proves something by itself.

..bye...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 09 - 06:31 PM

Why assume there is no other path out of recession? Been watching the FTSE 100?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:28 PM

Israel is not in a symmetric position with regard to surrounding mostly-Muslim states.

Israel has a sizable Muslim minority and is also close upwind of countries with Muslim populations.

Nobody could nuke anything in Israel without killing many more Muslims than Jews.

The reverse is not true. Israel can nuke Iran with very few Jewish casualties (and none that people like Lieberman care about).

Israel has hostages, the Muslim states of the Middle East don't.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 09 - 07:51 PM

Exactly, Jack. I am far more concerned about the risk of Israel launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear strike on Iran than I am about Iran committing national suicide by smuggling a single bomb into Israel and setting it off. Israel has a long history of launching massive attacks on its neighbours....not just a bomb here or a bomb there...but full scale military operations. Israel, like the USA, has a sense of its own moral entitlement, and they figure that it's perfectly okay for them to do what no one else (except the USA) is ever allowed to do.

Iran has such a sense of moral entitlement too, needless to say, as do Islamic extremists generally. They are not, however, in a position to launch major attacks (such as nuclear ones) with impunity. Matter of fact, if they do so they immediately sign their own death warrant under a hail of Israeli nukes. That makes it quite unlikely that they would do it.

It is only the very powerful in this world who do such things (full scale invasion or nuclear attacks)...because they believe they can get away with it and suffer little or no losses in the process. That's the "Shock and Awe" doctrine. The Iranians do not have that luxury. They would suffer virtually total loss if they triggered such events.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:05 PM

Not at all- those here that make fun of any serious discussion of the topic seem far more likely to encourage it, by not taking steps to avoid it.

"Let me make it a simple statement: Nuclear war is a bad thing. \

BUT it can't be prevented by hiding one's head in the sand and saying it is a bad thing- the actions that are taken will control whether it occurs. I wish to avoid having a nuclear war- It is a pity that so many others will say that and then act in such a manner as to greatly increase the chance of one happening.

This sounds like an act of grandiosity in reverse. In just what way do you perceive us, here on the Mudcat, as being able to affect these actions in any way? In what way do we encourage such an event "by not taking steps to avoid it?" In what way can we "greatly increase the chance of one happening"?

Frankly, rocket scientist or not, I doubt very much if even YOU have such abilities.

I don't have any idea what you are reading that makes you envision such a scenario, but may I postulate that it is a futile exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:17 PM

With the level of certainty that someone in this thread has that there will be a war that includes WMD by August of this year, and considering the example given, I expect that means that this person is aware of Israeli plans to conduct a false flag operation against itself or its interests and to use that as a pretext for nuking Iran (and apparently other places as well).

Israel has done that sort of thing before, and that's the only way that person could possibly have that level of certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Donuel
Date: 08 May 09 - 11:26 PM

The economy is two or three years away from getting back jobs that have been lost. The bottom is very near and the policies in place will ensure a slow motion recovery instead of the sudden plane crash scenario.

As for Nuclear War... the risk of an accidental nuclear war is far greater than a deliberate one.

I don't kinow if that soothes or frightens you but we still need to beat nukes into plowshares, but carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 09 May 09 - 07:16 AM

"Iran gives a nuke to Hezboallah, which sets it off in Israel, killing 50-75% of the Israelis and about 60-80% of the Palestinians."

uhh am i reading a novel here ? yes this could happen, but the
Isreal would know .

and one thing , dont many Isreal people come from Russia as well ?
and if so why is Russia helping out Iran ? for Money Greed ??
or just becouse they dont give a ............ skrúmp !!!!!

but why are the Islam world angry at the western world , what did we do to get those response ? Why do Iran have the need to make a N-clear
bomb?? is it all becouse of faith , I mean the Arabs , did fight Medina to fell Muhammed becouse they did not like what he was doin ,
Muslim ( those who belivie in god ) hmm I think I am gettin this right , I mean there are some here in Iceland I had a change
to meet some of them , and one of my best friend here is muslim woman
, not all of them read the Koran wrong . Maybe I will read the Koran ? who knows .

Did we get this response becouse of : greed , hunger for power ,
Money , for selling weapons , to get more jobs so the econamy would
go on , oil industry , and culture why in earth do we have take away from those people , every thing what is found from the past .
becouse of GREED , to make money so they can sit down in their fancy chairs, in the big houses with a bunch of money ??

Greed has followed us from the beginning, and it will fall us down ,
the question is , has the count down begun ? What felled Iceland was not just the international crisis , also GREED for all those
things , money power , and first of all people only thinkin about them self , not their friends or family . They made Iceland , the second ENRON FALL . And only made by 30 people , who on the end made one nation bankrupt , so we should maybe put up posters, dead or alive like in the west 18 hundred something .
But no they are goin get away with this ? somehow . great is it.








Donuel you said,

The economy is two or three years away from getting back jobs that have been lost. The bottom is very near and the policies in place will ensure a slow motion recovery instead of the sudden plane crash scenario.

in the news this morning at Sky , they say , British banks are waiting to the third hit wave of the crisis, whats happening here
in Iceland is this , house marketing prices is goin down fast ,
our Index at the National bank is goin down very slow ,
No one goes to the stores the price of everything is goin fast up , we are still looing alot of jobs
for a little nation like us 20,000 people are alot with out
jobs , 40 000 homes are goin over , now are just 300,000 thousand
so we should be recovering very fast , they say that we are out of this middle of next year.

And why did I start this thread , I just fell down to an historian book the other night , it told me about how wars started the first one and the second one . So I got wandering., and as you may see , I have a billion questions lookin for an answear .

well keep on love-in each other
all the best Skarpi Iceland .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:18 PM

It is mainly people's blind pursuit of money and power that has led us to this, Skarpi. When people seek only MORE money...but without regard to the many harmful side effects of what they are doing....everything soon goes to hell. It is the worship of the God of Money that has brought us to this point.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:25 PM

everything soon goes to hell.


why do think that ??
you got a great man as a president , he´s among the people and I see the world is found of him ,

comon , lets try to think positve all though this thread is just about wandering part of my mind , then I think this all will go well

love
skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 May 09 - 01:37 PM

Yes, he is a refreshing change from the usual presidents we've seen. I also hope for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:19 PM

"With the level of certainty that someone in this thread has that there will be a war that includes WMD by August of this year, and considering the example given, I expect that means that this person is aware of Israeli plans to conduct a false flag operation against itself or its interests and to use that as a pretext for nuking Iran (and apparently other places as well).

Israel has done that sort of thing before, and that's the only way that person could possibly have that level of certainty."

In a word, bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:29 PM

Oh yeah? Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:32 PM

The onus of proof is on you, big mouth. You made the initial statement.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 04:35 PM

'Israel has done that sort of thing before, and that's the only way that person could possibly have that level of certainty."'

YOU prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:06 PM

The fact that Israel has done that sort of thing before is incredibly easy to prove. The Lavon Affair.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:12 PM

Uh huh. I am aware of that. An this translates to a false flag operation resulting in nuclear war, soon. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:17 PM

It is so patently obvious that you would cross any busy street to take a shot at Israel. It is clear that you do not care about fairness or honesty in your posts. You can have this thread. And any other thread to do with Israel. I would suggest that any pro-Israeli supporters or even people who wish some sort of balance simply avoid resoponding to your posts. You do indeed have an agenda, and it is not to support Palestinians. It is, very simply, to tear down Israel, whether rightly or wrongly. Keep your hatred and may you develop ulcers because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:27 PM

I'm not the one who introduced the subject of Israel in this thread. Is someone has a problem with people introducing the subject of Israel in this thread, they need to complain to the person who actually brought the subject of Israel into this thread, not me.

I am not suggesting that they have used false flag operations to justify nuking someone. I am suggesting they have used false flag operations to justify doing whatever the hell they want.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 09 - 05:31 PM

Correction: If someone has a problem with people introducing the subject of Israel in this thread, they need to complain to the person who actually brought the subject of Israel into this thread, not me.

But then, the poster complaining to me never bothers to complain when people bring up the subject of Israel when he agrees with what they post. It's only those with whom he doesn't agree who aren't allowed to talk about Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 12:17 AM

Israel is a very sore point with people. They are generally either very much FOR Israeli policy or very much AGAINST it. There's not a damn thing that can be done about that, because it's such an emotionally charged issue by this time that people can't differ about it and maintain any kind of friendly dialogue with one another.

For that reason, I rarely comment on Israel at all on this forum. I mostly avoid the subject. Why? Well, I see no point destroying worthwhile friendships over a completely irreconcilable difference in basic core beliefs about who the "victims" are and who the "perpetrators" are in a longstanding dispute between 2 cultural groups.

The same is true of threads about the troubles in Ireland. I have no side to take in that one...but if I did, I would probably avoid particiapting in it too, and for much the same reasons.

It isn't worth it. Human relationships and friendships are more important than political loyalties.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 09 - 12:42 AM

It's even more of a sore point here in the US right now because we are coming to a very critical juncture in the way our government approaches the problem of Israel/Palestine. Which I think is one of the reasons discussions on the subject have become so heated of late. On the other hand, I think this discussion is helpful, in the way lancing a boil is helpful. A lot of stuff that has been festering under the surface for a very long time is now coming to the surface to be exposed to the light. In my opinion, this is a very good thing.

Discussion of contentious issues is not always destructive. Sometimes it's a part of a process of healing.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 10 May 09 - 08:57 AM

People here in Iceland ask them self this .

people who came from Germany after the ww2 and suffered the road to hell
as I call it , and was killed by the Nazi ,

are now taking people who have not done anything wrong , woman and children and older people to that road to hell , Isreali are doin the same thing to the Palistine as the Nazi did to them , not the same way
but killing people .

Now I have a question :
In the Holy bible , is there some thing in the bible that said
Isreali go and kill children and woman of palistine ?

I know the problem is Hizbollah and other fighters there , but this has gone to far .

in this war Israli have no go from me, I dont like their way of doin those thing s , Is the the hole Israli nation supporting the coverment in this ??

well I dont solve this here , but while the Isreal do their
war games on people who have not done anything wrong , I am
against Isreal , at the moment I dont get any stuff that is made in Isreal . and I have not done that for a hole year now.

kv Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:03 PM

You know,Skarpi,I think that maybe you might feel differently if you belonged to some persecuted minority Nordic race that had been hated,reviled,and discriminated against for thousands of years (the ultimate expression of Racism),had sought refuge in Iceland,and then had to suffer the insults and disrespect of and from the rest of the world,whilst your neighbours in Greenland lobbed rockets into your country on a daily basis with the sole intent of causing indiscriminate slaughter,whilst actively encouraging barbaric acts of terrorism by nutcase "suicide bombers" in your markets,cinemas,and places of worship,preferably killing as many Icelandic children and pregnant women as possible,with the ultimate objective of wiping out your entire race. In fact,I am quite certain,Skarpi,that under those circumstances,you would be among the first to support your government in its pursuit of Nuclear supremacy,in the interests of National Survival !! Never forget,Skarpi,that Armageddon is a real place.....in Israel ! They don't want war,any more than we do,but there is one difference that marks them out from the rest of us,and that is that if there IS a nuclear attack on them,and they look likely to be the losers,then when they go down, you can be sure that they will take the rest of us down with them ! So it might be a good idea to be NICE to Israel, after all, don't you think ??

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:30 PM

I bet he wouldn't feel differently if he was one of the indigenous Icelandic people who were displaced and ethnically cleansed by the minority Nordic race who had taken refuge in his country.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:53 PM

"if there IS a nuclear attack on them,and they look likely to be the losers,then when they go down, you can be sure that they will take the rest of us down with them ! So it might be a good idea to be NICE to Israel, after all, don't you think ??"

We should be nice to them or they'll take us all down?

Which is it - are they a poor defenceless huddle of dispossessed refugees or are they the human manifestation of gods retribution on the rest of us?

You wrote one paragraph and gave two contradictory views of the same hypothetical people.

I therefore find it hard to match your analogy against anything real.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:56 PM

You know Skarpi, i think you might fel a bit differently if you were eating Nachos off the thigh of a lecherous kangaroo whilst having your feet tickled by a thousand little green men.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 10 May 09 - 05:56 PM

This message apove is not worth to answear .


but I have to , just a little .
and just so you know , for over a 1000 years Iceland has been
under three nations , of wars and sickness , been killed and
been used as slaves, by algerian nation , been sold to slavery .

if you think its fine to live up here in the North Atlantic
ocean and think that we have always been free from this shit .
then think again .

Now Joe , I think this thread has gone over the line ,

So it might be a good idea to be NICE to Israel, after all, don't you think ??

you dont tell people what say or think or do . Over and out.

all the best Skarpi Iceland .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:09 PM

The third world war comes with the march of the yellow men..... take my word for it!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:19 PM

you know lox , I think I would like the little green better .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 09 - 06:39 PM

Little Hawk: You think it is some people's pursuit of money and power that has led to this? I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Rather I think it is thousands of insane Islamic terrorists that have brought us to this point in history. Part of the problem, I believe, is that so many people of the liberal persuasion believe, as you evidently do, that the quest for money, oil, power, or whatever, is the root cause of most of the world's problems. Folks who preach this philosophy don't take seriously enough the fact that Islamic extremists are on a religious crusade to destroy our world and transform it to one that they would control.

I don't think either you, or Skarpi would like living in such a world. I know I wouldn't.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:11 PM

Well, we disagree, Doug, because we disagree as to where those Islamic terrorists came from.

I believe they arose as a reaction to gross political and economic injustices perpetrated on Third World populations since the early 20th century BY large money-seeking entities that were based in Great Britain, France, Italy, the USA, and various other developed countries.

My mother visited Pakistan back in the 70s, Doug. What she saw then was a society that tremendously admired the West and wished to modernize itself in every way and emulate Britain and America, and a society that was peaceful and where things were getting steadily better. The Islamic fundamentalists we see now were barely even discernable. Their influence at the time was nil.

What she hears about Pakistan now from friends still living there is a tale of disaster...disaster that has been brought upon them by instability that has resulted from the West's oil wars in the Middle East, the war in Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Frankenstein monster of the Islamic Mujahedin fighters that the CIA trained and put together in the 80s to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan...those same people became the core and foundation from which grew the Taliban and Al Queda.

It is the West, Doug, who put Islamic fundamentalism on the map. If we had helped those societies modernize and liberalize instead, which is exactly what they were hoping to do a few decades back, you would not now have the existing problems with Islamic fundamentalism.

Our governments did it, Doug. They inspired and gave birth to the Islamic monster they are now warring against, and they did it for oil...and to hurt the Soviet Union. They made a very big mistake, and we are all now paying for it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 09 - 11:37 PM

I might add one more note to that, Doug. I know a lot of Muslims living here in Canada. Not one of them is an Islamic funadamentalist (though most are people of strong religious faith), not one of them is insane, not one of them is a terrorist, not one of them has a good word to say about terrorism. They are people from India, Trinidad, Pakistan, the Middle East, and many other places. They are among the smartest and best people I have ever known. I have no reason to fear any of them.

There are a great many such people also living in Muslim countries right now, but our media never makes a peep about them. Ask yourself why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 09 - 12:07 AM

There are no more 'bad' Muslims than there are bad Christians, Jains, Buddists, Taoists, Atheists, Jews, Hindis, Shintos, Ba'hais, etc.
However, there are some seriously bad fucking leaders, imo, and much of their intent is informed by BIG business.

Politicians manufacture wars
That's what the body bags are for
There's better ways to leave no child behind
I truly have come to believe
In a very simple litany
You're selling war and mister I ain't buying

That said, there are Islamic leaders who no doubt see the chance to force Islam on the world. Try one out of every four people on this planet are Muslim. I hope it's a very small minority that follow the idiots who lead.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:28 AM

"that's the only way that person *** could possibly *** have that level of certainty. "


Really? You seem quite sure of yourself. Perhaps you might ask God to let the rest of us in on what is happening.

I am predicting- the level of certainty is based on the three points LH brought up:

"1. the intelligence of world leaders
2. their sense of moral responsibility
3. and how ruthless they are...
"

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:36 AM

LH,

"If we had helped those societies modernize and liberalize "


THAT is what the fundementalists are complaining about the most- so you think if we had done MORE of what they protest the most they would then love us more?


I have this bridge to sell you...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 11 May 09 - 07:49 AM

thousands of insane Islamic terrorists , ?? Doug , you know better
than this ., what Little Hawk just said is true , we brought
this over our self , by bringin the west to the east , very sad .

I also know like I said some Muslims here in Iceland , and they are good people , but there seems to be a diffrend both in Christian and Islam about the bible and the koran , people disagree about the meaning of the books ,.

Some christian people will go all the way by the book , also
like Taliban , they even change the koran , and now they say it the sarian law ??

Little hawk , thank you for you r post , it was well said .
kv Skarpi Iceland .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 May 09 - 08:26 AM

the indigenous Icelandic people who were displaced and ethnically cleansed by the minority Nordic race (CarolC)

There were no indigenous Icelandic people and therefore the Nordic race was never a minority in Iceland.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 09:27 AM

Was there ever a Nordic race described in the hypothetical provided in an earlier post? My post was as hypothetical as that one. If there could have been a persecuted Nordic minority who sought refuge in Iceland, there equally could have been an indigenous people that were displaced by them. (Some people need to learn how to understand the concept of hypotheticals.)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 09:29 AM

How ruthless the world leaders are?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 09:47 AM

I think I phrased my second to last post badly, and we all know how much that bothers the poster whose point it is addressing. I shall endeavor to do a better job of it.

The post suggesting that the thread originator might feel differently about Israel than they do if (blah blah blah, hypothetical about a fictional persecuted Nordic minority seeking refuge in Iceland, blah blah blah blah), is proposing a scenario that has no basis in reality, but that is being used as a device to create in the mind of the thread originator some understanding of what the people in Israel might be feeling. The problem with this hypothetical is that it simply doesn't apply to the situation in Iceland, for precisely the reason articulated above, ie: the Israelis have been displacing and ethnically cleansing an indigenous population, while the people who settled in Iceland did not displace an indigenous population. The only way that the hypothetical could be set up so that it could approximate what has happened in Israel/Palestine, is to introduce a fictional indigenous people to be displaced and ethnically cleansed by the fictional persecuted Nordic people.

I hope that is sufficiently clear.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:04 AM

Carol,

if you want to clarify an ambiguous post could you try to do that without personal attacks?

Re: hypotheticals
Your original post has no unambiguous indication how far the "if" extends.
"If I was an Israeli (an inhabitant of the moon)" does not imply that there are no Israelis or inhabitants of the moon.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:20 AM

"and one thing , dont many Isreal people come from Russia as well ? "


Long history in Russia...

1905: A week-long pogrom marking one of the bloodiest periods in Russian Jewish history begins, spreading to dozens of towns and villages throughout Russia. Hundreds of Jews are killed, thousands are wounded and over forty thousand homes and shops are destroyed in the rioting.

three great waves of anti-Jewish rioting in the Russian Empire in 1881-82, 1903-06, and 1919-21

During the Civil War of 1918-1921, 2,000 pogroms left an estimated 100,000 Jews dead and more than half a million homeless.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:29 AM

Personal attacks? Have I said something that isn't true?

It wasn't necessary for my post to have an unambiguous indication how far the "if" extends, because it was an extension of the hypothetical in the post that preceded it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 11:33 AM

BB - The point I was making was that, yes, the majority of Muslims DID want to mondernize and liberalize their societies several decades back...and they were enthusiastically trying to do so. The fundamentalists did not have much influence at all at that time. They later gained influence precisely because of the destabilization of those societies caused by western-backed coups (such as the one in Iran that overthrew their elected government in the 50's), western-backed dictators (who were backed usually because they were "anti-communist" and because they played ball with the oil companies), and western-financed wars...plus the ongong troubles with Israel, also seen as backed by the USA.

But the biggest push Islamic fundamentalism ever got was when Reagan's admininstration hunted up every crazy Islamic fanatic they could find and armed and trained them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Those were the Mujahedin, the forerunners of the Taliban and Al Queda. The Pakistani government was very worried about it at the time and warned the USA through their military intelligence people that Reagan's policy was creating "a Frankenstein monster" that would come back later to haunt them. And so it has, with a vengeance.

Without the irresponsible behaviour of the West which has destabilized Islamic nations and alienated their public in the last few decades, and which has armed, trained, and organized cells of Islamic Jihadists to kill Russians, you would not have had the successful rise of this militant form of Islamic fundamentalism. You would, on the contrary, have had the rise of fledgling democracies and modernization in many of those countries instead. The many Islamic people I know who came to Canada came here precisely because they wanted to live in a place that has democracy, prosperity, peace, and a modern lifestyle, and they wanted to live without fear of being attacked by someone. There are millions like them still living in their countries who desire the very same things.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 11 May 09 - 12:56 PM

Skarpi,

I am flattered that you took the time to give my post due consideration.

I am grateful that you should have weighed up the alternative of having ones feet tickled by little green men against the other hypotheticals in this thread and that you have given your honest response.

I am intrigued that you should have found that alternative most appealing.

But most importantly, I await - with great interest - your reaction to the more weighty matter of the nachos and the kangaroo. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:28 PM

Are you referring to employees of the Bick Pickle company?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:33 PM

And all this time I thought that Kangaroos were allergic to nacho cheese.....

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:39 PM

But most importantly, I await - with great interest - your reaction to the more weighty matter of the nachos and the kangaroo. ;-)

hahahaha
I rather have Brennivín and rotten shark thank you .
its an old viking food, witch I like alot , and I have to say some
of fellow Mudcatters have already try it with an awful result.

we still make that old way of do in this food , think of it
if would have to live without electric for our houses , all the food would be damage . for exsamble if we had a n-clear war .

kv Skarpi Iceland

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 01:46 PM

It sounds disgusting!

The Brennivín and rotten shark, I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Lox
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:48 PM

Brennivin and rotten shark is the best argument in favour of nuclear war that I am aware of, though having said that I think it qualifies as both chemical and biological warfare combined and as such is a pretty potent WMD in its own right, so it serves as a detterrent to nuclear attack ...

the result is a scandanavian standoff.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 09 - 04:50 PM

I'm glad to see we're finally getting around to the stuff that really matters! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:47 AM

Which stuff - the Brennivin or Jews on the moon?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:22 AM

Jews on the Moon??? Wha-???? Has Woody Allen done a space trip recently or something?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:33 AM

Be careful...you will have CaroC frantically searching the internet for somebody who says the Palestinians were there first.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:02 AM

Be careful...you will have CaroC frantically searching the internet for somebody who says the Palestinians were there first. whaa !!!

to have the Brennivin and the rotten shark ?? no way men , this only done in the North atlantic area .

hee hee ,
kv Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:54 AM

How about lutefisk, Skarpi?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:11 AM

Wow. I never would have expected such a cheap personal attack from that source. So noted.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:16 AM

...a cheap personal attack, and a straw man, no less. I'm disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:36 AM

a cheap personal attack, and a straw man, no less. I'm disappointed.

Carol, its not an personal attack , not from me anyway .

kv Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:44 AM

No, I realize that. I was talking about the other person.

Thanks! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:19 PM

I note that the practice of attacking people who are working for Palestinian rights, using against them things they never said and attacking them for those things, is a standard hasbara tactic. It is used to smear and discredit the person it is being used against, not because the hasbara agent doing the attacking actually has any legitimate arguments, but rather, precisely because they don't have any legitimate arguments (because they are trying to defend the indefensible), so smears and personal attacks are all they have to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: skarpi
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:33 PM

Just so you know , there a group of people who are now as we speak in Palestinian , helping people who have lost their legs ,
last week there was a soldier in US who lost his leg in Iraq , he got an electrical hi tec leg from company here in Iceland , called ÖSSUR ,
same people are now making legs for the palestinian people . Idont know
what kind of leg they are make , but its an leg so they can walk again.

And please dont start telling me that we are helping terrorist and bla bla bla bla bla , we just helping people who got in the middle
of this war .

Icelanders , and I am proud for that , we can help people.

Kv Skarpi Iceland .

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:37 PM

That's really good to know. There's good people all over the world who are working hard to try to help the people in Palestine. I would definitely have expected some of them to be from Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:56 PM

It was supposed to be a joke, Carol. But then, one has to have a sense of humor, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:58 PM

I have a great sense of humor. That smear just wasn't funny. It was a smear.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:30 PM

I predicted a war involving WMD by both sides, between the US or an ally and other parties, by August, 2009, IF the Democrats won the election ( this was BEFORE Obama was a candidate).


No reason yet to change my prediction.

beardedbruce, I advise you to start thinking about what to say if your doomsday prediction turns out to be wrong what I think is very likely. You could take a look at some religious fringe groups in the USA who have predicted the end of the world and have been wrong:

The first excuse is a slight change of the time. Give a few months and you have bought time. But then it becomes more difficult. They then usually say that their prayers have induced God to change his plans. I can't think of a useful way to apply this argument here.

Israel would in a false flag operation kill more than 50% of its inhabitants by triggering a nuclear bomb from their own arsenal at home and then try to blame Iran?

Complete nonsense.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 09 - 02:51 PM

Wolfgang,

"I advise you to start thinking about what to say if your doomsday prediction turns out to be wrong what I think is very likely."

Actually, I HOPE I am wrong, but FEAR that I am not. Just because my analysis of the situation leads me to this prediction does not mean I desire or wish for it to happen.

But how many times does Israel have to shout ( to Iran) "Stop! Or I'll shoot!"??? The rest of the world has been told that the illegal possesion of nuclear arms ( re the NPT) by Iran is NOT acceptable to Israel- and has done nothing.

Given that China gets oil from Iran, and a nuclear attack of Iran could well destroy those oil fields, and Russia has been taking Iran's side, can one really expect the situation as I have postulated as NOT becoming a world-wide conflict, with 200- 600 million dead? Wishing it does not happen will not make the situation change in the least.

When was it that the EU told Bush not to take any action against Iran, because the EU would resolve the problem "diplomatically"?

And at that time, how long was it before Iran could "Possibly " have a nuclear weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:14 PM

I did not suggest that Israel would use a nuclear bomb of their own as a false flag operation. That idea comes entirely from the second to last poster in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:14 PM

Well, it was second to last before I made my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:30 PM

I preume that August is the product of Iran having nuclear weapons in "six months"? Is that the scenario in which you make your predictions, bb? Starting from when? Are you postulating that the first thing that Iran will do is use its alleged nuclear weapons? Why?

I can see - just barely - why a country under attack and in danger of annihilation would use its ultimate weaponry but certainly not otherwise. Why would a nation invite certain destruction?

As for Israel "taking others/everyone down with them" there is no way I believe in that either. Reminds me too terribly much of a person bent on suicide but who decides to murder others before they go.

It also reminds me of the old 'better dead than read' screed from a few generations ago. I have never bought into that. In my opinion, no government has the right to condemn its people to death in the name of avoiding a political fate. "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day".

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:15 AM

Ebbie,

re:"In my opinion, no government has the right to condemn its people to death in the name of avoiding a political fate."


If Israel uses nuclear weapons, it will be because:

1. Deterence has failed.
2. The state of Israel is in real danger of being destroyed- by those who have stated they wish to killl all the Jews.

See WW II and Masada. Look at the 830,000 Jews driven from Arab nations ( Re the 640,000 Palestinian Arabs that fled Israel) - hear ANY calls for their rights of compensation?)When 35% + of the members of a religion have their lives taken, one might expect them to fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:34 AM

To me, your answer doesn't match my questions.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:41 AM

"...It also reminds me of the old 'better dead than read' screed..." ~ Ebbie

Are you talking about a book by Al Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:54 AM

I'll be darned, pdq. lol I never noticed that typo. The line, of course, is 'Better Dead than Red'.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:55 AM

Ebbie,

If Israel uses nuclear weapons, it wil be because the majority of it's population is dead or dying.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:15 AM

"I preume that August is the product of Iran having nuclear weapons in "six months"?"

The time of August 2009 was predicted ( by me) back in late 2007. It was based on a reasonable analysis of the time required to produce enough material for several weapons, and the time for the ( Democratic) administration to demonstrate a lack of willingness to hold Iran to it's NPT requirements.


" Is that the scenario in which you make your predictions, bb? "

I gave a possible ( likely?) scenarion. There are others, involving Pakistan or North Korea. Should I specify the parameters on those, as well?





"Starting from when? Are you postulating that the first thing that Iran will do is use its alleged nuclear weapons? Why?"


Iran will provide it's proxies ( Hezboallah/Syria) with weapons as soon as it THINKS that it has some plausible deniability on their use.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:09 PM

It's not possible for Iran to have nuclear weapons grade material by August. They don't have the ability to enrich the uranium to the required concentration. Not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:13 PM

"It's not possible for Iran to have nuclear weapons grade material by August. They don't have the ability to enrich the uranium to the required concentration. Not by a long shot. "



Bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:15 PM

It's a fact, and it's been verified.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:19 PM

They verified a negative?

Yet you complained when Bush asked saddam to do so...

EVEN if they did not have enough centrifuges ( a point I do not concede, they DO have enough to provide fuel for a reactor- which cqan be used to make plutonium. So, by all counts of time, they have had enough time to produce in excess of the 10 KG of fissionable material that a first-generation bomb requires.



That and 6 months of engineering gets you a large mushroom cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:21 PM

This debate should probably hold until either party is able to provide a link to an authoritative and acceptably reliable source showing what is known, and how much is known about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:23 PM

Bruce, do you have a date in mind when you first posted your conjecturing "in late 2007"? I went looking to see your actual prediction but hey, 'tis a big job.

And are you saying that you, personally, know better than the 'experts' what Iran has on tap and in mind? CarolC's post is the latest official position.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:26 PM

"They verified a negative?

Yet you complained when Bush asked saddam to do so..."


Iraq shouldn't have had to verify a negative.


Neither should Iran.


Iran is next to Iraq and they saw what happened to Iraq so they probably felt it would be easier to go with the flow.


Either way, the point in quotes is argumentative fluff, having no bearing on whether Iran has or hasn't got a nuclear weapons. capability.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:34 PM

Ebbie,

"Bruce, do you have a date in mind when you first posted your conjecturing "in late 2007"? I went looking to see your actual prediction but hey, 'tis a big job."


My prediction was July to early August 2009.




"And are you saying that you, personally, know better than the 'experts' what Iran has on tap and in mind? CarolC's post is the latest official position. "

Which "experts"? The ones that the administration has on tap, to give them the answers that they want? The international consensus of those working in the field? The Israeli government's analysis? What the Iranians have told the UN? Do you really expect the UN to acknowledge that they have failed to enforce the NPT, and Iran is as close as it is to having nuclear weapons???? They already have IRBMs, so most of Europe is withing range, if anyone protests.



I based my analysis on open literature sources, and a basic knowledge of nuclear physics. ***I*** can buid a first generation bomb in less than 6 months, given the fissionable material... And Syria has Iraq's former supply of Uranium ( shipped to Syria while the UN dithered about the US not invading in early 2003), and Iran has more than sufficient to have been running breeder reactors for a while, now.

Chemical seperation of the plutonium from the used fuel, then machining and assembly. Not really all that hard- WE did it back in 1945, and information is openly available as to how it is done.

Yes, it is hazardous- but to a nation that put it's civilians out in front of advancing troops to set off mines (during the Iran/Iraq war), how much does that matter???

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:40 PM

Bruce, the date I am speaking of is the date or thread in which you "in late 2007" predicted the likelihood of war by August 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:53 PM

Bruce - its time you provided references for these claims.

This discussion can go no further till we know who's claims are accurate and who's inaccurate.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:26 PM

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/02/shockah-iran-bomb-threat-hyped-by-media-again.html

Despite all the hype about the latest IAEA report on Iran (PDF) the key phrase, repeated a lot in the IAEA reports is "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times." But that little detail normally comes out around paragraph five in news reports, if at all.

The Guardian, after a hyped lead, actually quoted an Agency official:

    "Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."

    The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."

The Guardian's Julian Borger then goes on to quote David Albright, who mentioned this "enough uranium for a bomb" twisted technicality in an analysis by his Institute for Science and International Security of the last IAEA report back in November, and has been bending it like Beckham ever since, motive unknown.

    "They have reached a nuclear weapons breakout capability. You can dance about it, but they would have enough to make 20-25 kg of weapons-grade HEU," Albright said. "If they break out they will do it at a clandestine facility, not at Natanz, so you can't use Natanz as a measure of how fast they could do it. The Iranians have stopped telling the IAEA about the production of centrifuges � so the agency doesn't know how many they are making."

But they'd have to use this LEU - which is "under containment and surveillance at all times" - in their clandestine facility or wait another 3 or four years to enrich enough uranium from hundreds of tonnes of raw material clandestinely kept separately from the stocks monitored by the IAEA, which they'd have to clandestinely ship into the country and then clandestinely convert into UF6 gas at yet another secret plant. David Albright can "dance about it", but the world would have instant warning of an Iranian breakout and at least a year to decide what to do about such an event.

Iran knows it too. Reuters, Nov 22:

    Iran's envoy to the atomic energy agency said that for Iran to militarize enrichment operations would require a complex, time-consuming reconfiguration of the process that inspectors could not fail to notice unless they were kicked out.

    "This information has no technical basis and gives wrong and misleading information to the public," Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters after an IAEA briefing about the report, provided for its 35-nation Board of Governors.

    "In Natanz [main enrichment plant], all material produced goes into a closed container sealed by IAEA seals and watched by cameras. As soon as anyone wanted to touch the seals, the next second the whole world would know," he said.

    "Because of this it is absolutely impossible to rearrange and use this low-enriched uranium to turn into high-enriched. It means stopping inspections, stopping cameras and coming out of the NPT, and we will not do that."

Back when he wasn't being asked for quotes hyping the threat from the media, Albright himself wrote that just about the only thing that could convince Iran to kick out the IAEA would be an attack on its existing civilian facilities.

Occam's Razor, take a backseat please, we've news to hype.

Update: Our friend and real-life nuclear analyst Cheryl Rofer writes in comment's over at Kevin Drum's blog:

    This stupid formulation showed up a few weeks back. Yes, they have enough atoms of U-235. ... so do lots of countries. The point is getting them all together at one time, which Iran hasn't done yet, and won't be able to do as long as IAEA inspectors are in the country.

    As Muhammed ElBaradei (Director-General of the IAEA) said, "As long as we are monitoring their facilities, they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight." That wasn't exciting enough to get into the news.

    I am really irritated that so many reporters are dumb enough to continue to repeat this "Iran would have enough material for a bomb if it had enough material for a bomb."

Update 2: Cheryl has a post at her own blog.

    if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

    The issue here is concentration...Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration.

    ...Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance...There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:36 PM

However, if the prediction is based on the hypothetical possibility that Iran could possibly have brought in some hypothetical material that Syria might hypothetically have, and that they might hypothetically be enriching it at hypothetical facilities that nobody knows about, well... I guess its safe to say that the prediction is something that was pulled out of someone's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 01:52 PM

CarolC,

You base your arguement on the lies that the Iranian spokesperson said- that the monitoring has continued. Since the IAEA has stated otherwise, and they are the ones monitoring. I guess we know who has been pulling what out of their ass.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:04 PM

In the article I posted, the IAEA corroborated what the Iranian official said. So I guess it's not the Iranian official who is lying. (Maybe it's the one who has pulled the August prediction out of their ass.)

"Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."

    The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:32 PM

The fact that there are rumours and innuendos about the possibility that some nation may be trying to build an atomic weapon is no justification for attacking that nation and starting a war.

The fact that there are rumours and innuendos about the possibility that some nation may have any kind of WMDs in its possession (such as in the case of Iraq in 2003) is no justification for attacking that nation and starting a war.

The fact that you think someone might attack you some day is no justification for attacking them NOW and starting a war.

The fact that you think your neighbour has a hidden gun and wants to shoot you some day is no justification for going over to your neighbour's house TODAY, kicking in his door, and shooting him. Ask the police what they think about that if you don't believe me.

Yet that is what you and Israel seem to wish to do, BB. You would like to attack Iran first upon your stated suspicion about something they may or may not have and may or may not do at some unknown time in the future. You would like to do what you don't think anyone else HAS the right to do...that is, commit mass murder upon someone whom you regard as your enemy, regardless of whether your enemy has done that to you.

You have no leg to stand on in that regard. Neither does Israel.

It is he who attacks first who has started a war, not he who receives that attack. Those who start wars are those who must bear the onus for the death and destruction which follows.

The USA launched a completely illegal war against Iraq in 2003 over false accusations of Iraq having WMDs. You seem to desire a similarly illegal war against Iran over similar accusations for which there is no proof...but here's the really sick part: Even IF Iran had in its possession 10 or 20 nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW and openly admitted it, BUT had not used any of them against anyone, you would have no justification for a first strike on Iran for one simple reason...he who attacks first is the aggressor in a war, and such aggression is totally against international law and is not justifiable, and it's a hell of a lot bigger crime than merely hiding an illegal weapons project (assuming Iran even has such a project to hide, which we don't know).

Furthermore, the Iranians are NOT trying to kill "all Jews". Hardly. There are Jews living in Iran. I have seen Ahmadinejad sitting down and talking in a friendly manner with Orthodox Jews in Iran who oppose the political cause of Zionism. Go look it up in Wickpedia and a few thousand other addresses on the Net. Here's a quote directly from Wickipedia:

"The current Jewish population of Iran is estimated by most sources to be 25,000,[5][6][7][8] though estimates vary, as low as 11,000 [9] and as high as 40,000[10]. Notable population centers include Tehran, Isfahan (1,200)[9], and Shiraz. Historically, Jews maintained a presence in many more Iranian cities. Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution.[6] Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim-majority country.[11] After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East.[12"

The Iranians are not opposed to the existence Jews as a people, they are opposed to the present political cause of Zionism (land grabbing) as practiced by the state of Israel. They are not anti-semitic, they are anti-Zionist.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:32 PM

IAEA indicts Iran
Nuclear innocence claim is strongly contested
BY PETER BROOKES
New intelligence continues to blast away like a sledgehammer at Iran's rocklike insistence that its nuclear program is purely peaceful and not a nuclear weapons effort as many strongly believe.

The latest evidence comes out of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which released a nine-page report that casts serious doubt on Iran's purported pacifist power program.

In a dramatic change, based on new, multisource, multilateral intelligence received over time from its members, the IAEA has shifted its position from being unable to prove Iran has a nuclear weapons program to being unable to prove Iran doesn't have one.

Regrettably, the nuclear weapons shoe increasingly fits Iran's foot quite snuggly.

ATOMIC ACCUSATIONS

Based on 18 hard-copy and electronic documents provided to the IAEA, the nuclear-monitoring agency revealed in its report in late May several deeply disturbing concerns on the nature of Iran's nuclear program, especially possible military dimensions. In its first formal assessment of Iran's nuclear efforts since February, the IAEA states: "The agency is of the view that Iran may have additional information, in particular on high explosives testing and missile-related activities, which could shed more light on the nature of these alleged studies and which Iran should share with the agency."

The IAEA considers these unanswered questions on Iran's nuclear work "a matter of serious concern," because the existence of this sort of activity might indicate Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon, contrary to its repeated public protestations.

Moreover, the report states: "Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to supports Iran's statements," despite the new intelligence, which is "detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent."

The first charge is that Iran is suspected of conducting high explosives testing. This includes work with exploding bridgewire (EBW) detonators and a detonator firing unit, which could be used for triggering a nuclear weapon; 500 EBW detonators were tested.

In addition, a five-page document described experiments for a "complex multipoint initiation system" to "detonate a substantial amount of high explosive in hemispherical geometry" that could be employed in an implosion-type nuclear device.

Tehran also is accused of developing plans for underground explosives testing, which could be used for detonating a nuclear weapon similar to the testing done by North Korea when it joined the once-exclusive nuclear club in October 2006.

The documents include a diagram for what is described as a 400-meter-deep shaft located 10 kilometers from a firing control point, showing "the placement of various electronic systems such as a control unit and a high-voltage power generator."

There is also a mysterious piece of information the IAEA calls the "uranium metal document" in its report, which is related to the "actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon." The document reportedly involves procedures for machining highly enriched uranium metal into a hemispherical shape, key to producing the rounded pits used in modern implosion-type nuclear weapon warheads.

Strikingly, the report notes that "Pakistan has confirmed, in response to the agency's request, that an identical document exists in Pakistan" to the one found in Iran — possibly showing connections to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.


more

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:34 PM

The Armed Forces Journal neglected to put a date on that report.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:37 PM

LH,

"You would like to attack Iran first"


NO.

I would like the IAEA and the UN to ENFORCE the NPT, and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as they agreed when they got the benefits of the NPT. If they do not, then it becomes a possibility that those who are threatened by those illeagal nuclear weapons may take action to eliminate them.


If I started to build a nuclear bomb in MY basement, you can bet that the police would bust down my door and arrest me. So, why should Iran be any different?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 02:38 PM

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/07/3561963

from the clickey

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:01 PM

It's not new or the latest then, is it? In fact it's much older than what the IAEA official said in the article I provided.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 09 - 03:12 PM

You are living in a city where the police have jurisdiction and the means to enforce it, BB, so the police can and indeed would bust down your door in that case.

Iran is an independent sovereign country in a world full of independent countries who ALL do whatever they damn well please within their own borders, and no one does anything about it, because no one has the jurisdiction to...and more importantly, the means to do anything about it, short of launching a war that will kill millions of people.

And you know it.

Therefore, your analogy does not hold water.

Furthermore, if it did hold water, your analogy would also apply equally well to the USA and Israel, who have both done illegal things on a nunber of ocassions, and "the (international) cops" didn't "bust down their door" for it and arrest them. Same reason: they didn't have the practical means to.

You misunderstand the situation if you imagine that a sovereign nation is in the same position as you are when you start building an A-bomb in your basement in New York City or wherever.

New York City has real laws, BB, and a real police force that can enforce those laws. The world does not. The world is, to all intents and purposes, virtually lawless. It is in truth run by the principle "might makes right", and you know it. The more powerful nations do whatever they wish to with impunity. It has always been that way, despite the periodic attempts to build international organizations such as the U.N. and international rules of war such as the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not saying it should be that way. But it is.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:22 PM

Lox,

My predictions are based on possibilities.

We do NOT know the "facts" about the Iranian uranium program, because of the several times that it was NOT under IAEA observation. If it is now, that does not change the possibility that there was a diversion of material in the past.

I gave a scenario that I think ( far too )likely: I do not need to "prove" it, since I offered it as one ( of several) way(s) that we could have the predicted war by August. YOU will have to look objectively at the real world, and see if the predictions that I make are possible or likely.

Looking at likelihoods does NOT mean that I desire the outcome that I see, just that I see enough basis to consider that it may well occur, and try to determine if there are actions I can/should take to lower it's likelihood, or reduce it's impact.


Just because I wear a seatbelt does not mean I intend to have an automobile accident.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:29 PM

If Iran has a secret stash of uranium that is being enriched in secret locations, it won't matter what the US or Israel does to try to stop them, even if they attack the enrichment facilities that we do know about. So attacking Iran hasn't got the possibility of solving anything. Looks like diplomacy is the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:40 PM

"it won't matter what the US or Israel does to try to stop them, even if they attack the enrichment facilities that we do know about."

Unless they DO know about them, and are keeping quiet to avoid letting the Iranians know that they know.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:02 PM

But what if they only know about some of them and Iran has others that would continue operating after such an attack? And to make it even scarier, if Israel attacks the sites they know about but misses others, they will think they've taken care of the problem even though they haven't.

In fact, the Iranians might even be devious enough to create decoy sites that they allow Israel to think are real, so Israel will attack those and think it's done the job, all the while Iran is continuing its program in sites that nobody except the Iranian government knows about.

Or it could even have a nuclear weapon right now, and it's using secrets sites as a decoy to entice Israel to attack it, and then it can nuke Israel as a defensive measure against Israel's attack.

All of this speculation ignores the real threat to Israel, which is this...


http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/28/the_treason_of_the_hawks

The real threat to Israel's future is the occupation, and the conflict with the Palestinians that it perpetuates. To see that, all you have to do is look at current demographic trends and poll results and then ponder the consequences for Israel. There are presently about 5.6 million Jews in "Greater Israel," (i.e., the 1967 borders plus the West Bank) and about 5.2 million Arabs (of whom nearly 1.5 million are citizens of Israel). Palestinian birth rates are substantially higher, however, which means they will be a majority of the population in "Greater Israel" in the not-too-distant future.   To put it bluntly, it is Palestinian wombs and not Iranian bombs that pose the real threat.

Netanyahu ought to be equally concerned by signs that the Zionist ideal is losing its hold within Israel itself. There are reportedly between 700,000 and one million Israeli citizens now living abroad, and emigration has outpaced immigration since 2007. According to Ian Lustick and John Mueller, only 69 percent of Israeli Jews say they want to remain in the country, and a 2007 poll reported that about one-quarter of Israelis are considering leaving, including almost half of all young people. As Lustick and Mueller note, hyping the threat from Iran may be making this problem worse, especially among the most highly educated (and thus most mobile) Israelis. Israeli society is also becoming more polarized -- which is one reason Netanyahu had such trouble forming a governing coalition -- with the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox at odds with secular Israelis, to include the more recent immigrants that form the core of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support.

So what are Israel's options? One alternative would be to make the West Bank and Gaza part of Israel, but allow the Palestinians who live there to have full political rights, thereby creating a binational liberal democracy. This idea has been promoted by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians, but the objections to it are compelling. It would mean abandoning the Zionist vision of a Jewish state, which makes it anathema to almost all Israeli Jews, who want to live in a Jewish state. The practical obstacles to this outcome are equally daunting, and binational states do not have an encouraging track record. If the choice were between this option and a genuine two-state solution, there can be little doubt about which Netanyahu would prefer.

A second option would be for Israel to retain the West Bank and expel the Palestinians by force, there preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. A few Israeli extremists have proposed something akin to this, but to expel millions of Palestinians in this fashion would be a crime against humanity. The Palestinians would surely resist being driven from their homes, and such a heinous act would take place in full view of a horrified world and damage Israel's reputation far more than the recent carnage in Gaza did. No true friend of Israel could support such a course of action, and one hopes that Netanyahu has the good sense to recognize that it would be a tragic mistake to go down this road.

The only other option to a genuine two-state solution is some form of apartheid, in which the Palestinians are granted limited autonomy in some disconnected and economically crippled enclaves whose borders, airspace, and aquifers are controlled by Israel. The Palestinians' fate, in other words, would remain in Israel's hands, even if some modest efforts were made to improve their living conditions. This outcome seems to be what Netanyahu has in mind, but it is not a viable long-term solution either. The Palestinians are not going to accept being permanent vassals -- especially once they are a majority in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean -- and they will continue to demand either a viable state of their own or full political rights within Israel. Over time, this option is going to be an increasingly difficult sell around the world, and especially in the West.

That is why former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Ha'aretz in 2008, "if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses," Israel will face "a South-African style struggle for voting rights." Once that happened, he warned, "the state of Israel is finished." Despite his long career as a Likud Party stalwart, Olmert finally recognized that if the two-state solution becomes impossible, Israel will be stuck defending a political order that is anathema to prevailing Western and American values. Although lots of other democracies have behaved abominably towards minorities in the past, such behavior is not legitimate in the 21st century. Americans favor self-determination and our own political traditions emphasize liberal values and the virtues of a melting-pot society. Even a lobbying group as powerful as AIPAC will find it hard to defend Israeli apartheid.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:09 PM

CarolC,

Since you have promised me that there is no such Iranian nuclear program, I know that Israel is safe from Iranian nuclear attack.

Of course, if there is such a program, then I guess we will have WW III, and there will not be any Palestinian problem in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:22 PM

Who knows? The experts are saying they can't rule out the possibility that Iran has a bomb already. I guess what the above poster is saying is that the Israeli government is insane and is willing to attack Iran even if it means that Israel will be utterly destroyed as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:27 AM

I guess what the above poster (CarolC) is saying is that the Iranian government is insane and is willing to attack Israel even if it means that Iran will be utterly destroyed as a result.


I have the same basis for my statement as she has for hers.


She has the right to whatever guess she wants to make- as do I.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:02 AM

Whatever whoever is saying...there is no justification for attacking another country on the mere suspicion that it might one day attack you.

There is also no justification for saying, "Well, we had to do it, you see, because they're insane..."

That sounds to me like the kind of feeble BS excuse that someone like Hitler or Goebbels would come up with for invading another country. Only the person who utters the excuse himself can be blind to the innate hypocrisy of taking such a position to justify his own premeditated act of murder.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:39 PM

Hell, I'm not the one who has been calling the government of Iran insane. That's the main argument of the poster who started this thread, and is that person's main argument in favor of attacking Iran. Looks like that argument cuts both ways though. If we can use it to justify an attack on Iran, we can also use it to justify an attack on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:40 PM

Oops. Not the person who started this thread, but the one who has been predicting war in August.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 03:43 PM

BY August- It might happen sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 May 09 - 04:07 PM

By the same logic, my worrie about skarpi and the possibility of a negative experience involving little green men is just as likely, as there is no proof for or against.

This reminds me of the whole "church of the flying spaghetti monster" debate in kansas.

no proof for or against so it should be recognized as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 04:32 PM

"is just as likely, as there is no proof for or against.
...
no proof for or against so it should be recognized as possible. "





The POSSIBILITY exists: the LIKELIHOOD is somewhat less: the first part of your statement "Is just as likely" has no validity, but it does have a non-zero possibility.



It is "possible" for a coin to land on edge, rather than heads or tails- but far less likely.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 09 - 05:43 PM

I think I have it figured out: The prediction is that nuclear war will be instated by August, thereby beating by one month the new administration's inauguration the 9/11 disaster.

See, if we feel that the Bush administration was lackadaisical in ignoring the warnings they had received (Al Quaeda determined to strike inside US) then we have to accept that it's the Obama administration's complicity or responsibility in allowing nuclear war.

Is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:39 AM

Not at all, Ebbie- I had not considered that, or I would have picked a date AFTER 9/11, to prove that point. July/August seems to be when a large number of conflicts occur.

August is BEFORE 9/11, so I am sure that, should any conflict happen, it will be declared to be Bush's fault.


But ANY nuclear/WMD war is a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:26 AM

So we are being told that if we don't wage war against Iran before August, there will be a war sometime before August.

If we do wage war against Iran, or if Israel does, I predict the use of WMD by either the US or Israel, so waging war against Iran absolutely guarantees a war involving WMD, but using diplomacy carries a chance of no war of any kind.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:03 PM

BB, you are correct that the summertime is a prime time for wars, and that's both a subliminal AND practical thing that occurs for natural reasons. Summertime is the time of highest energy in nature...the most energy coming from the sunlight pouring down, so it is also a time when the risk of human conflicts becomes heightened to some extent because people feel that energy in themselves.

It was traditionally considered the best time for launching military campaigns because the weather and soil conditions were most favourable to armies, air forces, and navies in the summer. The spring is too wet and muddy. The fall is okay, but winter is on its way with stormy weather and the campaign may not be over by the time the cold sets in. Winter is the absolute worst time for weather and climate, therefore the least propitious time to be fighting wars.

Many of history's great battles were fought at the height of the summer. The Civil War, for instance reached its apex of fighting at the battle of Gettysburg, July 1,2, and 3rd.

This doesn't mean it has to be that way. The Germans attacked Poland in September 1939. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December (but Hawaii weather was perfect in December).

Anyway, in a general sense you are correct that summertime is a high risk time for wars and major battles.

****

If some major incident occurs during the first year of the Obama presidency, it will not be because of Mr Obama. It will be something that would have happened regardless of WHO got elected president in 2008, because there are much larger controlling forces than mere presidents behind what happens in this world, and they set the agenda.

That's the part you don't get, BB. It's not about Obama or McCain or the Democrats or the Republicans. It's about the unseen and unacknowleged ruling power $ySStem that owns them both and keeps them in its side pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:21 PM

CarolC,

"So we are being told that if we don't wage war against Iran before August, there will be a war sometime before August."


No, no-one except you have said that.



I predicted a war involving the US or someone we have a treaty obligation with and another party, which involves the use of WMD by two or more opposing parties.

Feel free to make any predictions you want: You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:25 PM

Weather is for sissies. The Mongols could slaughter a European army in winter, immediately ride through snow for 130 miles nonstop for three days (that's nonstop), and level another city. Then eat breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:27 PM

How are we defining "WMD" at the present time? What is your definition of the term, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:37 PM

heric - Yeah, well, the Mongols didn't have to deal with motorized transport. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:41 PM

WMD- nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

The "standard" definition.

Althought the planes hitting the WTC were declared to be WMD, they are NOT included in the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:52 PM

Okay.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:25 PM

Whats more, the mongols were driven by Ghengis Khans testosterone, which was responsible for his genes being the most prolific of any others in history in subsequent generations.

Kill Rape Kill Rape ...

my testosterone freezes up in the winter.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:30 PM

Polls predict that Ahmedinajad is liable to be voted out as President in the Iranian elections on June 12th.

Not a good time to help him win by hyping up the prospect of war. Of course there are probably some people who would like to do precisely that, because he is a very convenient enemy...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 05:45 PM

So we are being told that no matter what Obama does, there will be war? We are not being told that he should attack Iran, or support an attack on Iran by Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:13 PM

It strikes me that someone is weaseling. The first prediction - repeatedly made - was that it would be NUCLEAR war, not just WMD. WMD could mean not only biological, chemical or nuclear, it could be something as basic as napalm or possibly rapid-fire projectiles.

But, bb, if you are actually predicting a NUCLEAR war between the US and its allies against anyone else by or in August 2009, I'll take the bet: NO!. Make the bet as large as you like- I'd be happy to make my fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: pdq
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:39 PM

No, Ebbie...bb's first post to this thread was:


"Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:15 AM

I predicted a war involving WMD by both sides, between the US or an ally and other parties, by August, 2009, IF the Democrats won the election ( this was BEFORE Obama was a candidate).


No reason yet to change my prediction."

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 08:57 PM

But surely that person is saying that no matter who became president, we would have such a war by August, because they have now said that it doesn't matter whether or not the US or Israel attacks Iran, there will be a war regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:28 PM

Iran is due for 'elections' in June, which I think will have some impact on the bellicosity of the region.

Personally, I think there is LESS danger of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel than of a lot of other things happening. Nations do not wish to be targets, so nations limit their vulnerability. Ahmadirtyjob is a nasty piece of work, but he is not insane.

Ethnically, Persians are distinct from Arabs. I've heard some Mideast experts opine on the perception of danger from Iran being comparable in Saudi Arabia as with Israel. Saudi Arabia is populated by Wahhabi Sunni Arabs and in many cases may have less commonality with Iran than, well, Israel.

I would say that WW3 is going on right now, this worldwide, ideology fueled and internet moderated concatenation of nasty behavior. Not to mention a significant American presence in Iraq and a commitment by the current US administration to prosecute military operations in Afghanistan with tie-ins in Pakistan.

The only issue I'd take with Carol's false flag comment is that it isolates Israel for some reason while in fact it applies to pretty much every actor in the Middle East, Europe, North and South America, Al Qaida, El Segundo, and the Midwest (I'm thinking about YOU, OHIO! I know those designs you have on Kentucky!)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:12 PM

I didn't isolate Israel. Israel was the topic of the discussion, along with the US and Iran. I find it very bizarre that in threads in which Israel is the, or one of the topics of discussion, some people expect everyone to drag every other country in the world into the discussion every time someone mentions the name 'Israel'. They don't expect people to do that when other countries are being discussed, just Israel. (I expect such people are engaging in verbal sleight-of-hand.)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:55 PM

And Carol you make sure that doesn't happen, sometimes to the exclusion of all else!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:55 PM

"False flag" operations have been used by many countries to justify going to war. It's all about getting your own public onside, and that's easy if you can convince them that someone ELSE has attacked the nation. Hitler had the Germans convinced in 1933 (Reichstag fire) and 1939 (supposed Polish attacks on German radio station and German nationals in Poland). The USA has done the same kind of thing from time to time to initiate wars or to enlarge a war (as in Vietnam). The Japanese did it to get their public onside for a war against China in the late 30's (they provoked a border incident, then pretended that the Chinese had provoked it). It's the oldest trick in the book, you might say, and it's a trick that is generally believed by almost everyone in the aggressor nation...because they believe their own media and their own political leaders, and they don't even get to HEAR from the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:08 PM

I didn't bring the subject of Israel into this thread. I do notice, however, that people who think that every country in the world except Israel should be discussed like to try to make it look like I did. But that's just part of the whole hasbara shell game, eh? Try to divert attention away from stuff they don't want people to see by smearing the people who bring it to others' attention, as we can see in that weasely, passive aggressive effort a couple of posts back.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:13 PM

However, to address the specific passive aggressive effort itself, in threads about the US, I have on many occasions brought up our use of false flag operations to initiate illegitimate wars. So that bit of hasbara sleight of hand happens to be quite false. I have not brought up the use of that tactic by other countries because it is only the US and Israel for which I am responsible, so I have a responsibility to fix what's wrong with those two countries before I go pointing fingers at other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:45 PM

Excellent point, Carol.

As a citizen of Canada I am also in a somewhat similar position, because Canada is, in effect, a cultural and economic colony of the USA...an unofficial part of the great American empire...and usually complicit to a considerable extent in US foreign policy. We're like one finger on the American fist.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:07 AM

"While the Obama administration appears likely to resist the near-term pressure for military action (not least because of its preoccupation with the creeping Talibanization of Pakistan, Iran's already nuclear-armed neighbor to the east), its mix of rhetorical innovation and policy continuation is unlikely to produce a different outcome.

This presents a timeline of a war foretold: Over the next few months, a set of U.S. diplomatic gestures will probably be met with skepticism and stalling in Tehran. New and alarming intelligence about possible covert nuclear programs will surface, accompanied by a step-up in Hamas and Hezbollah activity. The administration will conclude that its outstretched hand has been met with the familiar fist and will seek U.N. support for crippling sanctions. As Russia and China decline to join a meaningful sanctions regime, proponents of military action will argue that all other options have been exhausted. War will be upon us. "

Nader Mousavizadeh
Thursday, May 21, 2009

The writer, a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, is a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.


Bringing Iran In From the Cold

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:59 AM

The Washington Post played a big hand in dragging us to war with Iraq, too. And we all know how that turned out. The opinion piece's writer, Nader Mousavizadeh, used to write for another neo-con publication, The New Republic. His reason for softening us up for a war with Iran is transparent.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:15 AM

Surely the deteriorating situation in Pakistan is more worrisome? India is the one who will take direct action if things swing wildly out of western control there.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:53 PM

I've done some reading recently on the Pakistani political situation, and what it indicates to me is that ALL the Pakistani political parties are so corrupt and dishonest that the country is actually better off under strict military rule by the army than it is under any elected government that might come forth through the political process. That's a sad thing to say, but in Pakistan's case, I think it may be true.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:21 PM

CarolC

"Nader Mousavizadeh
Thursday, May 21, 2009

The writer, a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, is a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:24 PM

"His reason for softening us up for a war with Iran is transparent."


Of course, had CarolC READ the article, she would have seen the article was to try to CHANGE how Obama acted, and PREVENT the war.


I posted it merely to show that others, of quite different political persuasion, have reached about the same conclusion that I have.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:08 PM

Obama's already doing the things that Mr. Mousavizadeh suggests in the opinion piece. So Mousavizadeh is not suggesting a change in Obama's approach.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:09 PM

And by the way, Mousavizadeh also says that Iran is not in violation of the NPT. Do we still consider him credible?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:52 PM

CarolC,

A person can be wrong in one fact and still have an opinion that might be useful to consider. I even read what YOU post, in spite of the fact I often disagree with your opinion, and sometimes argue with your facts.

I DID NOT say I agreed with him in everything, just that others, such as him, have reached similar conclusions to what I have.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:08 AM

All this talk about when WW3 is going to start.

It started damn near forty years ago, it's only now that people are beginning to notice, the only topic for discussion is how severe its effects will be, and oddly enough the last president of the United States of America went a long way towards mitigating the worst possible scenario and heading things off at the Pass. Your present incumbent will "Carter-like" screw everything up again.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:39 AM

So saith...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:13 PM

Teribus,

"It started damn near forty years ago, it's only now that people are beginning to notice, the only topic for discussion is how severe its effects will be,"


Rather than WW III, let us say "the next phase of major conflict involving the larger part of those peoples known at the time, which started sometime after two tribes were formed and came into conflict."

As I will refer to WW I and WW II, without reference to the precursor activities, I think we can call it WW III when the WMD start being used, if two or three continents are being fought upon.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:54 PM

well that's a mouthfull

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 09 - 05:16 AM

If you are thinking in terms of World War I and World War II to determine the nature of the beast then World War III will never happen.

Why?? Because such damaging conflicts have been rendered unnecessary and undesireable - For those who have deep seated grievences, 9/11 with the added dimension of utilisation of WMD showed the way to proceed.

That was why your previous administration was right on the money when in the wake of 9/11 and the immediate fire had been damped down in Afghanistan, they addressed the core of what was the actual greatest potential threat (Rogue State with WMD technology), not the mirage of what was perceived by some as being the main threat (International terrorist organisation).