tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post3253139642373709621..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: Stratfor: Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian DealFrank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-43543829469244376242010-04-12T16:35:14.115-05:002010-04-12T16:35:14.115-05:00@ Ren Eye: perhaps these are the oilfields in Iraq...@ Ren Eye: perhaps these are the oilfields in Iraq and the Middle-East that are going to allow the US outrageous deficit spendings.Stevenrixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-68455320770788430222010-04-12T07:12:55.669-05:002010-04-12T07:12:55.669-05:00Sentinel-
Wow, I didn't know any of that. I s...Sentinel-<br /><br />Wow, I didn't know any of that. I see now why the BNP is growing.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-41225924889004284962010-04-11T21:47:10.237-05:002010-04-11T21:47:10.237-05:00Pagan Temple,
You are spot on about the British T...Pagan Temple,<br /><br />You are spot on about the British Tories. There is nothing even remotely conservative left about them at all.<br /><br />In fact if anything they are even worse PC fanatics in many areas then the Labour party itself and that is pretty much the only thing that is preventing them from a landslide in May; it will cost them dearly in fact and even if they win, all predications point to a hung parliament.<br /><br />Quite a remarkable feat really, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.<br /><br />The full astounding details of Cameron and the PC insanity he has dragged his party into is too long to bother with here but a few of the choicer ones started upon his taking the leadership of the party and declaring that didn’t like the Britain of the past but Britain precisely as it is now, which obviously begged the question of what exactly is he is doing as the leader of the opposition.<br /><br />Then there was his suggestion that we should hug hoodies (UK speak for the thugs who wear hooded tops to disguise their faces) rather then punish them; allow unlimited numbers of African homosexuals ‘asylum’ in the UK; the forcing of all women and all ethnic candidate lists on local party committees; the adoption of ‘big society’ based upon Saul Alinsky’s theories, the main one of which he dedicated to Lucifer (incidentally this is the same man Obama declared as his ‘spiritual mentor’) and then perhaps the most ludicrous and to my mind treasonous public uttering of his so far:<br /><br />“Indeed, they [British Muslims] see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the Muslim way of life, not the other way around”<br /><br />For a real assessment of this now crackpot party and their leader read this damning article from a former Tory supporter and paper:<br /><br />http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100032381/david-camerons-big-society-is-a-grotesque-fantasy-inspired-by-leftist-subversive-saul-alinsky/<br /><br />Shocking stuff, really.<br /><br />PS: My potted history of the US above was not meant as a reflection of the American people in any way, just some of its 'leaders' and thier actions.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-58859741411095732152010-04-11T20:30:33.842-05:002010-04-11T20:30:33.842-05:00Ren-
Keeping Gates was a way partly of reaching o...Ren-<br /><br />Keeping Gates was a way partly of reaching out to Democrats, an attempt to make a show of uniting the country, and also yes, an attempt at continuity in a time of war. But I wouldn't read too much otherwise into it.<br /><br />As for defense spending, so what? It has always been bloated and mostly bureaucratic nonsense. That has been as true under Democratic presidents as Republicans. It doesn't prove either national loyalty or disloyalty, it simply proves the defense industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and has been since the days of Eisenhower. <br /><br />It's like every other fucking bureaucracy, and conservatives do themselves a disservice (in fact the make themselves look foolish and not a little hypocritical) by not wanting to reign it in just like they say they do every other bureaucracy. <br /><br />Why do you think I rant and rave about NATO? I think after sixty-five years we should assume its probably safe to engage in a gradual troop reduction and ultimate withdrawal from the European theater. Our troops are needed in a handful of areas. Europe isn't one of them, and hasn't been for quite a long time now. So why the hell are we there? Military contracts, perhaps? How much of our hundreds of billions of dollars in defense spending is circulated through that bureaucratic maze anyway. Sorry, but its bullshit. Since when did a mutual defense treaty necessitate our endless presence on foreign soil regardless of whether there is an actual war going on or not? Could it be its just another welfare program for spreading the wealth around? Who knows? I know it looks bad.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-74123839321301599812010-04-11T20:10:33.673-05:002010-04-11T20:10:33.673-05:00Sentinel-
Everything you said about past Democrat...Sentinel-<br /><br />Everything you said about past Democratic administrations was spot on, but its also ancient history. The Democratic Party used to be the war party, and was well known as such. However, that was before the advent of the seventies and beyond, when the leftist, pacifist wing of the party became the controlling wing of the party. <br /><br />There are only very illusory surface similarities between your major parties and US parties. But I'll try to put it this way. Your Labour Party is probably most comparable to the Democratic Party of the sixties and seventies in a good many ways. The Democratic Party of today would probably be more similar to your Liberal party. <br /><br />As for your Tories, they have probably even less in common with our Republican Party, relatively speaking. Tories are probably most similar to the McCain wing of the party, which by and large, though it is the controlling wing of the party, also makes up the minority in actual numbers. This more moderate wing of the Republicans probably are a third to, at best, forty percent of the party makeup. <br /><br />There is nothing in either of your parties that can be called conservative, at least not as conservative Americans have come to understand the meaning of the word. <br /><br />Your Tories favor such things as gun control, for example, which here is considered about as left-wing as you can get. I would presume they are also opposed to the death penalty regardless of the heinousness of the crime involved. They are probably much more amenable to higher taxes for the purposes of social spending programs than are most American conservatives and Republicans. <br /><br />I would also quibble with your assessment as to the wars being illegal. I guess that all depends on what the meaning of the word illegal is, and who makes that judgment and why. But here in America, there is a very big difference in our two parties as to what constitutes a legitimate reason to go to war and, perhaps far more importantly, how to go about conducting that war once it has been declared.<br /><br />There is far more daylight between Republicans and Democrats than between Labour and Tory when it comes to this issue, it would seem. <br /><br />Democrats will go to war only when it becomes a political imperative. For example, should an enemy nuke Baltimore, they would be hard pressed to not respond to some extent. <br /><br />Otherwise, they know they will lose their base (or at the very least a sizable portion of it) should they go to war, regardless of the importance or the seeming necessity to do so-national security be damned.<br /><br />All you have to do is ponder many of the comments here by most of these mostly leftist readers of this blog. When it comes to a great many issues, there is far less daylight between they and Democrats than there is between Democrats and Republicans. That's just the reality here.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-13482066690177545482010-04-11T12:30:49.746-05:002010-04-11T12:30:49.746-05:00Pagan Temple,
That was pretty much the line in th...Pagan Temple,<br /><br />That was pretty much the line in the UK (and elsewhere too) when the so-called Labour party took power (the equivalent of your Democrats) but nonetheless they have engaged in more wars in their 13 years in power then any other British party in history, including two illegal wars based upon lies, and still have been re-elected 3 times and may even be re-elected a fourth time next month.<br /><br />I don’t know how else to put it, but most people it would seem, not only have memories the span of a fruit fly but are about as intelligent as well.<br /><br />On the main issues in the UK there is no difference between the top three and so it is with your even more restrictive top two. <br /><br />(Just for instance, do either party really vary on the influx of immigration into your country, both legal and illegal, or what do with the tens of millions illegals already resident? Has either of them even really tried to stop the illegal invasion?)<br /><br />And given that the exit polls showed that 97% of blacks voted for Obama, who do you think they would switch their vote to anyway? <br /><br />Do you really think a lifelong Democrat will really vote republican? <br /><br />Is there any other real choice?<br /><br />Wasn’t both World Wars presided over by Democratic presidents?<br /><br />Didn’t the Democrat Wilson base his re-election campaign on the promise that he would keep ‘US boys out of foreign wars?’ And didn’t that promise turn out to be a lie? And didn’t that Democrat lie about US neutrality too? And therefore about the very reason for entering the war? As we all know now the Lusitania was indeed illegally carrying arms and ammunition when it was attacked, and that was a passenger liner so how many other ships were breaching neutrality? <br /><br />And didn’t the Democrat Roosevelt place an Oil embargo against Japan (much of it Asian oil at that) and then move his war fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour? Didn’t Roosevelt know that this would inevitably lead to war? After all, they had long broken the Japanese codes and there is much evidence to suggest that the US know full well of the Pearl Harbour plan in advance.<br /><br />Come to think of it wasn’t the President behind the start of the Vietnam War a Democrat? Wasn’t that Democrat in charge when the Gulf of Tonkin incident earned him the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate? And wasn’t that incident a complete fabrication, and didn’t he admit as much afterwards?<br /><br />So it seems to me that Democrats don’t mind war at all, in fact they seem to quite like it; and it also seems to me that they don’t mind lying to the American people and the world to get the wars they want when they want them.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-46107896899494034492010-04-11T12:12:42.118-05:002010-04-11T12:12:42.118-05:00Pagan: There is more defense spending under Obama,...Pagan: There is more defense spending under Obama, than Bush. <br /><br />Party is unimportant. Obama's policy is in most ways as Bush's in his second term. Keeping Gates at DoD, is a show of continuity.<br /><br />Sentinel: The same goes for Obama, what applied to Bush.<br /><br />The aftereffects are too heavy, post Iran invasion.<br /><br />Iran is not Kosovo.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-45479179584379377102010-04-11T06:24:38.975-05:002010-04-11T06:24:38.975-05:00Sentinel-
I don't think you understand the di...Sentinel-<br /><br />I don't think you understand the differences in the political parties here in the US. Democrats, to a person, when it comes to war, can be pretty damn bellicose in their rhetoric when they want to sound tough for political purposes, but when you get right down to it, at the end of the day, their preferred method of assault is with sanctions. When worse comes to worse, they'll lob a few guided missiles and bunker busters, or cluster bombs, from a remote distance. They are very adverse to sending troops into anywhere, though they will do so if no other option is politically tenable. <br /><br />It took Obama a number of months to come to the decision to send more troops into Afghanistan. He only did that because we were already there and he knew he would catch hell if he did not, the circumstances on the ground there having degraded to the point they had. <br /><br />The last Democrat to send troops into an area was Bill Clinton, when he sent troops to Somalia. I trust I don't have to tell you what a fiasco that turned out to be. <br /><br />When Democrats are in charge of war policy, it pretty much amounts to, if our soldiers are attacked and fifty are killed, first they hold a hearing to discuss what it means, and then they issue an order to counter-attack, with the caveat that they should make damn sure they don't kill any more than fifty-one enemy soldiers.<br /><br />Bear in mind, this is when they want to look "tough but fair". They would much prefer to apologize and leave, followed up with offers of rebuilding aid. In Obama's case, he might go that extra mile of offering a profound, heartfelt apology on behalf of the people of the US.<br /><br />Is this because the Democratic Party are made up of pussies? Well, partly, but it's mainly because of the people they depend on to be elected-and re-elected. A Democrat who engages in war, no matter the provocation, will always lose at least ten percent of his voting base. If Obama invaded Iran, I can promise you he would lose at least half of his electoral support, and there's no way in hell he'd make it up from another faction. <br /><br />All of which is a long-winded way of saying, if you are waiting for Obama to declare war on Iran, you might as well be waiting for Prince Charles to assassinate Gordon Brown, arrest Parliament, throw his mother in the Tower of London, and declare himself Emperor of the British Empire and order an invasion of India.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71035453521186583832010-04-10T23:18:22.068-05:002010-04-10T23:18:22.068-05:00Renegade eye,
Saying that Bush didn’t invade Iran...Renegade eye,<br /><br />Saying that Bush didn’t invade Iran is proof that it won’t happen isn’t really an indicator of reality.<br /><br />Why didn’t he? Mainly because he wasn’t told to, would be my guess.<br /><br />Secondly because it would have been pretty much physically impossible given the commitments already undertaken, but he did manage to preside over two illegal wars based upon nothing but lies without too much of a whimper out of the masses so you have to give him some credit, really. <br /><br />Obama still has some creditability left around the world so when, after his token peace gestures, he gets around to joining in on the campaign against Iran in earnest, that should ensure equal silence amongst the masses.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-83100956426047139012010-04-10T20:17:37.656-05:002010-04-10T20:17:37.656-05:00Excellent article. Really shows the complexity of ...Excellent article. Really shows the complexity of the situation and the positions of the various players, esp the US and Israel.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-18357276877317395292010-04-10T18:02:48.234-05:002010-04-10T18:02:48.234-05:00Sentinel: I argued mostly with leftists who said B...Sentinel: I argued mostly with leftists who said Bush was going to invade Iran before he leaves office. I argued publicly against a speaker at a Worker's World forum. What happened? Why didn't Bush do it like people said he would?<br /><br />I'm closer to the position of this post. My difference is I believe the internal opposition is stronger than they say.<br /><br />Steven R: This period is not one of slump and adjustment, it's a period of crisis for capitalism. That isn't calling it dead. Recovery is on people's backs. This is a crisis of over capacity. That means production will be cut. People still have needs, but productivity will be cut.<br /><br />China is now suffering reverberations from the slump. Contrary to "anti-globalization" types, the world is headed for protectionism.<br /><br />Everyone will be interested in your trip.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-66183479225831974292010-04-10T14:20:04.023-05:002010-04-10T14:20:04.023-05:00The Chinese will not participate in any gasoline e...<i> The Chinese will not participate in any gasoline embargo. Beijing gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran </i><br />China is going to become a competitor within the next few decades, the strategy of the US is to smother China from getting oil resources, so the best strategy for the US to do that is to "stay the curse" in Iraq and keep a presence in the Middle-East. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I don't think the Democrats are going to do anything different from Bush politics, and to tell you the truth Ren., I try to put an aluminium foil on my head because i'm so tired of MSM. Anyway the Dems will just play down the game, accusing the Republicans that they are still in Iraq because of Bush. <br />PS: I'm planning a trip to China, hopefully this year, but it will be in the south of China, they tend to be more traditional than the North. I'm fascinated by its people, not their government.<br />PS2: haven't found a job yet, even after getting more skills, what happened to the american economy?<br /><br /><br />Xie XieStevenrixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-6464755743428428112010-04-10T12:06:38.141-05:002010-04-10T12:06:38.141-05:00I don’t think it is off at a tangent at all Renega...I don’t think it is off at a tangent at all Renegade Eye; all the usual platitudes of ‘engaging in diplomacy’ and ‘gathering the facts’ and ‘doing the right’ thing were issued over Bosnia and Kosovo (and Iraq come to that) and it was all a load of crap. <br /><br />As they were making these claims they were already flying in mujahideens, arming the local militias as well as know terror and criminal gangs, running ‘black ops’ against Serbs and essentially escalating the situation to ensure it would explode. <br /><br />That was the whole point. They lie all the time and they are essentially psychotic and that is very hard, pretty much impossible for people that haven’t seen in play to fathom. Once a decision has been made it will go ahead irregardless of what the public are fed.<br /><br />And so it is with Iran; they have already made a concerted propaganda effort comprised of nothing but lies as demonstrated in my last comment and they are very much in the process of building up forces to engage the Iranians as we speak. <br /><br />They want Iran, they will have Iran. When is the question, not if.<br /><br />You say they are overstretched but here is another concept that people haven’t experienced it first hand can’t seem to fathom: They don’t care about the soldiers. They couldn’t give a flying fuck, more often then not they are privately contemptuous of them.<br /><br />Iraq is a minor sideshow for the US now tying up few troops as is Afghanistan so it is physically possible to attack at any time, but as for the rest of the reasons such as troop welfare, equipment, morality, truth and reason, they couldn’t care less I can assure you of that.<br /><br />They are even starting to use exactly the same arguments as they did with Iraq to justify it and it always amazes how short people’s memories can be or devoid of comprehension they can be.<br /><br />I personally think the actual hostilities are a way off yet as the slow boil has been favoured so far, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised if some ‘emergency catalyst’ ramped up the rhetoric first with the next year or so.<br /><br />“Those who do not remember history are condemned to relive it”The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-51768077080273548552010-04-10T01:11:59.717-05:002010-04-10T01:11:59.717-05:00Sentinel: You're off on a tangent. You're...Sentinel: You're off on a tangent. You're speaking about everything, but the post.<br /><br />The US is overextended in Iraq. It wants out, and needs the help of Iran and I would add Syria.<br /><br />I think truth is material. The US can't at this point in history, deal with the ramifications of war with Iran.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-2349971147554179612010-04-09T11:57:50.372-05:002010-04-09T11:57:50.372-05:00Clinton especially is very pliable when lubricated...Clinton especially is very pliable when lubricated with cash:<br /><br />“I am so honored to be here and once again to speak on behalf of the causes and concerns that we share...on behalf of the shared interests and security and democracy that form the unbreakable bond between our two nations... <br /><br />I thank you for supporting AIPAC. Because as active citizens you are serving an essential function: when you advocate, when you lobby, when you speak out on issues that matter to the Jewish community and to Israel... <br /><br />Israel is confronting many of the toughest challenges in her history, in a neighborhood that is less secure than ever. At this moment of peril, what is vital is that we stand by our friend and our ally... <br /><br />We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely Iran."<br /><br />http://www.economist.com/user/Mark%2BS.%2BOller/comments<br /><br /><br />But then her husband was equally prone to such money motivated bombastic sentiments: <br /><br />“The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die,”<br /><br />http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2002\08\04\story_4-8-2002_pg1_6<br /><br />How very, very strange he never made such a rousing offer to his own country (and indeed avoided the Vietnam draft), and how very, very odd he would make such a profound declaration to another. <br /><br />The hold of Israel over Mrs Clinton is tangible, last year for instance, just 10 hours after the Israeli foreign minister declared:<br /><br />“…Lieberman said Iran is not Israel's biggest strategic threat; rather, Afghanistan and Pakistan are…”<br /><br />http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080097.html<br /><br />Clinton announced:<br /><br />“…ominously, that the situation in Pakistan "poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world."<br /><br />http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/clinton-says-pakistan-poses-mortal-threat-1672927.html<br /><br />Co-incidence? Maybe but I think not given this other statement by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman:<br /><br />“The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office. <br /><br />"Believe me, America accepts all our decisions," Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.”<br /><br />http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080097.html<br /><br />With powerful enemies such as these, and the build up approximating the conflicts above, Iran is doomed.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-36514327038660620792010-04-09T11:54:48.674-05:002010-04-09T11:54:48.674-05:00I went into detail on the realities of Bosnia beca...I went into detail on the realities of Bosnia because I am personally acquainted with them and to illustrate just what really goes on behind the scenes when these decisions are made for reasons not fully known.<br /><br />I don’t think I need to go into Iraq at all, that litany of lies and betrayals are well known now, after the fact.<br /><br />And so to Iran. It has been a focus of long term demonization, threats and build up of the Bosnia / Kosovo / Iraq kind.<br /><br />Everything from blaming Iran for IED’s in Iraq to the false reporting of Ahmadinejad saying that he would ‘wipe Isreal off the map.’ <br /><br />http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-first-the-us-deluded-itself-about-the-war-then-about-the-source-of-the-weapons-436833.html<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_translation<br /><br />Here is the ludicrous unified media’s laughable emotional response to that lie:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7rH4egQBU&feature=player_embedded<br /><br /><br />Exhibiting the same unity in dishonesty as they largely did with the conflicts mentioned above and all the while the build up to attack Iran continues unabated behind the scenes whilst, just as with the conflicts above, the politicians tell us only about ‘diplomacy.'<br /><br />“Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.<br /><br />The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.<br /><br />Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack…”<br /><br />http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151<br /><br /><br />Again, the exact reasons why Iran has been selected for special treatment are not fully known but a major factor that is fully known is the threat it poses to Israeli hegemony in the region and their determination to be rid of it. We also know that the leading lights in the US such as Obama and Clinton are heavily in debt to pro-Israeli donators<br /><br />http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@sus.csuchico.edu/msg22077.html<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/goldman-sachs-obama-money_b_177611.htmlThe Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-48285970592789622802010-04-09T11:51:34.793-05:002010-04-09T11:51:34.793-05:00For whatever reason, the US had long decided to ba...For whatever reason, the US had long decided to back the Muslims in the region irregardless of the truth (the sheer logistics of what occurred needed long planning and contacts) and so that is exactly what happened and that was the version presented to the world as truth in sinister unity by most of the worlds media.<br /><br />The same happened in Kosovo as I successfully predicted, not by esoteric means by knowing the ‘game.’<br /><br />http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/kosovo0704/7.htm#_Toc77665984<br /><br />Since then more realistic details have started to trickle out about the war and the US conduct during it such as their support for the Bih / KLA gangsters, narcotics purveyors, human slave traders, international terrorists, money launderers, hit men and even Serb ‘POW’ organ harvesters.<br /><br />http://www.serbianna.com/columns/michaletos/020.shtml<br /><br />http://de-construct.net/?p=7264<br /><br />Why did the US do what they did and back who they did? <br /><br />Lord knows. Certainly no one I spoke to of any rank had any real clue as to what the hell they were doing. There were credible rumours that Clinton’s re-election campaign had received millions from his KLA friends but that just doesn’t seem to be a sustainable enough reason for all that were involved to actually be involved.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-40725881241067494112010-04-09T11:50:05.421-05:002010-04-09T11:50:05.421-05:00A very interesting article but I think when you un...A very interesting article but I think when you understand the ‘game’ and how it works you understand that these decisions are made well in advance by people that don’t seem to include the president for reasons that are never fully apparent and I strongly believe that Iran’s fate is thus determined. <br /><br />I have seen with my own eyes several times these machinations in operation as a serviceman, the most notable for me was Bosnia; the popular perception of the war was that it was a spontaneous and inexplicably ‘racist’ popular Serb attack on defenceless Muslims whereas the reality was that it was a slow brewing complex problem with lots of newer factors besides the old cultural, religious and ethnic divide, Albanian crime being one of the major ones. To be sure there were atrocities, there always are in wars but the balance was tipped towards the Muslims but this was never or rarely reported. The whole world was united against the Serbs by media reports that were completely biased and even untrue. <br /><br />If you can stomach it, here is some photographic proof of Muslims atrocities against Serbs in the region of Srebrenica that went unreported whilst the disgusting retaliation by Serbs was covered in detail.<br /><br />http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/011.shtml<br /><br />The conflict itself would probably never have escalated beyond local exchanges of gunfire were it not for the ‘peacekeeping’ mission of the US who promptly began arming and flying in mujahideens, mostly from collection points in Iran, who then took the conflict to a new level in fanaticism and barbarity. <br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6547287.stm<br /><br />The US also financed and armed the Bih which were largely comprised of regional gangsters and ‘warlords’ and the KLA, which was little more then a front for the Albanian mafia all whilst bombing Serb positions and cities.<br /><br />http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/fr033199.htmThe Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71736787873003143222010-04-08T23:37:57.869-05:002010-04-08T23:37:57.869-05:00Pagan: When Hezbollah was formed, it was subsidize...Pagan: When Hezbollah was formed, it was subsidized by Iran. It is now wealthy, with its own network. Shiite imans are not poor.<br /><br />Hamas's aid from Iran is questionable. How do they physically get arms to Hamas, without going through Egypt?<br /><br />I think Obama would gladly help Ahmadinejad, put down the protesters.<br /><br />Overall I agree.<br /><br />What threw me for a loop, is the implication the Iraqi Congress types, represented Iran.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-41904709938148206022010-04-08T21:35:28.174-05:002010-04-08T21:35:28.174-05:00This is a rational and logical analysis of the sit...This is a rational and logical analysis of the situation. Well before the last election, I always assumed that if Hillary Clinton were elected, at the time seemingly a probability, I always said she would be to Iran what Nixon was to China. Maybe Obama will follow that path. It's hard to say. One thing is for sure, it would be a disaster to enter into a war with Iran now, and sanctions would be close to meaningless. Under the best of circumstances, sanctions hardly ever hurt the regime that is their target. By their natures, they tend to absorb the hit, while the common person suffers. <br /><br />Given that either war or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, and seeing as how the situation can't remain frozen in place forever, what the author suggests seems like the most likely scenario. I just question whether the Obama Administration is capable of handling such a policy.<br /><br />One major sticking point is going to be Iran's ties to Hezbollah, and possibly Hamas. However, we have a very good reason to seek normalized relations with Iran-access to their oil. That would also be a reason why Russia and China would prefer we not get too cozy with Iran.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.com