MY spin on the IRANIAN CONFLICT to come:

[Tyler Durden]

I have a nasty habit of being right on with my predictions. My only REAL failure lately...there isn't a draft. YET. Wait: I could still be right on that one.

I have resisted this one for a long time, but too many people I know have gotten shakey when I rendered this opinion. I think I'm right on this one, and I don't want to be:

PHASE ONE:
This part's already happened, and closure came with the Quadrenial Review validating the Bush "Pre-emptive War Doctrine" and identifying IRAN as the new top demon. Bolton saying so in front of the UN was the icing on THAT cake.

PHASE TWO:
This will have to be some sort of trigger: a "terrarist" act would be perfect. Wouldn't have to be HERE, although Bolton is touting an Iranian Nuclear 911 as a possibility. A BIG explosion in Tel Aviv that could be blamed on Iran (directly or indirectly) should do nicely.

PHASE THREE:
The BEST angle for the Bushites would be ISRAEL taking out Iranian Nuclear Facilities with a couple of air strikes. They did it before in Iraq, and they don't give two shits about what the rest of the world thinks. They also know we will bail out their asses.

PHASE FOUR:
Iran can field what, 6 MILLION under arms; not REAL well trained, but how do you stop 6 MILLION INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF CANNON FODDER, just WALKING to Bagdhad? Answer: you CAN'T, unless you use a line of low-yield, battlefield theater nukes. And we got em' already, going bad in their bunkers in New Mexico and Virginia. And even that might not work. Maybe some of those Bioweapons that we "don't have" migh need to be used. Yuck.

PHASE FIVE:
ANYBODY'S GUESS. My guess is that Iran lays hands on a low yield nuke (lots of them Satchel Nukes the Russians made kicking around: want to bet YOUR kids' future that they don't have one or two? Me neither) and THEN you get Bolton's Nuclear 911. I don't even want to THINK about the dozens of possiblies they could run.

Now if you'll excuse me, the corner of the room and some fetal position cowering look pretty good just about now. SEE why I don't want to think about this?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. To increase your paranoia

The Mayan calendar indicates a disaster, happening either in April or June of this year. The shamen are asking everyone to pray so that we can survive as a species.

[Imagine My Surprise]

2. Is there a link to Mayan calendar?

thanks

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Link

http://www.mayanmajix.com/

Go to the article pages and read.

[Tyler Durden]

3. You want paranoia, HEY, we got BUSH.

Mayans?
We don' need no steekin' MAYANS!

[converted_democrat]

6. That's not real comforting..n/t

[SpiralHawk]

4. Phase 6: Ding, dong - China arrives on the Scene

Everyone makes a beeline for Meggido to smash the ever-lovin bejabbers out of each other and every living thing they can vent their hate upon

[DinahMoeHum]

5. How about Russia?

n/t

[ladjf]

8. I don't think that either Russia or China is likely to unilaterally

attack us in the near future. However, if the PNAC guys in power continue their wide swath of pillaging and murdering, there WILL eventually be an International consortium, with the power necessary, to step in and stop the empirical devastation being wrought be the criminals that have stolen the governmental powers. If and when that happens, no one will have won. All will have lost. The only good thing will have been that the plague of PNAC crooks will have been snuffed out, along with millions of innocent Americans.

Remember that the old way of thinking "There is no country that can stand up to the U.S. because we've got so many weapons" is totally obsolete. 9-11 already showed us how the principle of asymmetrical force can prevail. The U.S. may have many thousands of nukes, with ICBM's to transport them. But, a half dozen simultaneous nuclear strikes on six East coast cities would render the U.S. virtually helpless. In the first place, against whom would we retaliate? Would we just make up another enemy as we did in Iraq? And by the time our fools in power gave the order to shoot a hundred nukes into the middle East, the destruction, radiation and general mayhem around the world would have reached a point of no return. We would be reduced to a "war lord" system of social order.
All of this horror is unnecessary. It could be avoided by doing whatever it takes to get rid of the vermin that is now running the show in Washington. No easy job. But, better than doing nothing.

[ladjf]

7. China isn't going to attack us. They are making way too much

profit off of us to do that. And besides, if they attacked us, they would never have their loans to us repaid.

[1620rock]

9. So we attack them, and that way don't repay the loans. n/t

[ladjf]

10. Yea, right. We'll attack China as soon as we have finished

polishing off the insurgents in Iraq. They are invulnerable to any threat from us short of an all out
mass nuclear attack, which of course, would have far too many lethal effects on our own people to be worth the risk.

I do believe that China and the U.S. are in a race to be the first to have space based weapons ready to use. Who ever achieves that first probably feels that they had the check mating move. In other words, they could call the other country on the phone, tell them that they had 10 minutes to surrender before the missiles would be launched. The whole scenario as I have just described would be sheer lunacy. But, lunatics are running our government. And for all we know, the same is the case in China.

[robertpaulsen]

11. Tyler, here's another scary phase:

Courtesy of happyslug:

Now, the report uses the term "Attack" and that can include an Air Attack on Iran without the use of ground forces. The US has the Air Force to do such an Attack, it will NOT be as easy as Iraq but losses on the US Side will be minimal. This is even a worse nightmare. Iran controls the whole Northern Coast of the Persian Gulf. Without ground forces to deny Iran access to that Coast, Iran can put its anti-Ship Missiles anywhere along that coast AND PROHIBIT ANY OIL FROM COMING FROM KUWAIT, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Rest of the Gulf Coast states. Furthermore Iran has missiles that can reach the Arabian main export port and thus capable of Destroying that port's ability to export oil. Iran also has support in that part of Arabia so it is possible for a terrorist attack on those and other oil facilities could be done. Sooner or later Iran, if attacked, will force the US to break off the Air Attack so that Iran will stops its attacks OR invade Iran and you get the real problem mentioned above in invading Iran.

I can see up to 50% of world wide oil production just stop within a week of such an attack. Such a Shortage will force the US into a Recession AND force the Pentagon to tell the President that he has to adopt some plan to end the Iranian attacks (i.e. stop the air attacks OR invade). Thus you back to the problem of Invading Iran OR quiting the Air Attacks. Bush will NOT want to appear "weak" so he will invade, the Invasion will succeed like it did in Iraq, but then you have an increase in unrest in Iraq (Mostly in the now quiet Shiite Section of Iraq) and guerrillas attacks on the American Forces in Iran. Bush will have to bring back the Draft just to replace the men (and women) being lost in these attacks. That will lead to domestic unrest as young people refuse to get drafted. You may even have riots (AND THAT MAY BE WHAT BUSH WANTS, RIOTS TO JUSTIFY MARTIAL LAW for the riots are hurting the troops and part of the same "terrorist agenda to destroy American").

I dread the above Nightmare, but maybe it is what Bush and Cheney wants,for it can lead to a dictatorship. Remember Bush's debacle on Social Security, Bush still wants to kill Social Security so maybe Bush believes the only way to kill Social Security is in a Dictatorship. Thus with an Invasion of Iran, he gets the Draft, he gets Riots, he uses the Riots to abolish Civil Liberties, he than passes by Decree to make his tax cut to the Rich and Abolish Social Security.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2013189#2013747


My prediction, corresponding with this one, is that we will see airstrikes from either Israel, US or both. We will then get retaliation, not just from Iran, but also Syria, who has a joint defense pact with Iran.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-02.htm

This occurs before October 2006, * then goes to Congress saying he HAS to get their authorization for a ground invasion, after all, they're already attacking us, are we just going to CUT and RUN? He'll put Congress in the same election year bind they were in back in 2002.

Deja vu? You bet your ass.

[Oneliest]

13. Probably won't use nukes near the oil

While Iran may tenatively have a 6-million Army its unlikely they can logistically support that many forces forward for an extended period of time. Via air superiority and stand off weapons (non-nuke). If the Iranian forces can be contained or blocked, and then denied logistical support, they will rapidly soften.

In any event I am pretty sure no one in the Western world wants to take a risk with nukes near the oil for obvious reasons. I would imagine there is some negotiations going on with Israel behind the scenes to have them act as our proxies. Why else do we supply them will all our advanced aircraft, and weaponry?

http://lonelyistheoneliestnumber.blogspot.com/