News Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

[Moridin]

Again, I think that you are confusing 'Iran' with 'rational, democratic country that listens to reason and that is not obsessed with religious dogma'. There is a reason that two democratic countries has never (or you would have to search a long time for an example) been to war with each other. Can you justify this assumption? Especially with the KNOWN actions of Iran, independent of your view of the US administration as a propaganda machine for western imperialism?

It's funny that Bush calls the Iranian military "terrorists". What do the people of other countries call the US after our military and intelligence agencies train terrorists to unleash on their populations? The US is the largest exporter of terrorism in the western hemisphere. Just ask the families of the tortured, murdered, "disappeared", etc in South and Central American countries.

I though I already refuted this Chomsky styled leftist unreason in an earlier post? Do you even know what terrorism means? Can you define it for me and explain why it should apply to the US? What is the purpose of terrorism? I think that you are only using the term for attention.

 

[turbo]

I though I already refuted this Chomsky styled leftist unreason in an earlier post? Do you even know what terrorism means? Can you define it for me and explain why it should apply to the US? What is the purpose of terrorism? I think that you are only using the term for attention.

You may have nay-sayed something like this, but there is no way you could refute it. The US military and the US intelligence agencies train right-wing terrorists in torture, interrogation, and the application of terror. Yes, terror. Keeping the civilian populace so fearful for their lives and the lives of their families that they will not oppose whatever dictatorship is in power. That is the purpose of terror - to keep the populace cowed through fear and thereby control their behavior. The US government and its intelligence agencies and military have trained terrorists and orchestrated coups in this hemisphere many times in the past century. Their track record is very well-documented and is not in question. The only question is if you will refuse to call these terrorists terrorists because they wear a military uniform of the ruling junta, and they trained in the US. That is a distinction that their victims cannot make.

 

[sneez]

You are the one who is refusing to enter a rational debate. I have posted my views with the evidence I present to support it. You have two options: i.) try to use logical arguments to refute my arguments with supporting evidence or ii.) withdraw from the discussion.

Your views is the evidence? You presented your opinion and your opinion is expressed in those links, well, vice versa. What r u talking about? You can run but cannot hide. Be carefull with the word evidence, especially in politics.

Are you saying that when you say "Since you did not provide refutation of my opinions, they must be correct..." is not a fallacy ? Hmm, maybe its the lack of capacity to understand what fallacy is.
UPPS there you go again:

No, but since I have presented valid and strong evidence for my point whereupon you attempt to withdraw from the discussion, we can only accept them as valid in the light of the evidence presented.

You can convince yourself about the nature of my withdrawal from the no-debate. But as a homework: identify the premise, assumptions and conclusion of your argument and tell me what you find out... [There is a book which might help you: HOW WE KNOW, WHAT IS NOT SO, Thomas Gilovich]

I have no emotional investment in this discussion or the real life situation. You, however, have shown plenty. Iran, Israel and the US can bomb each other to pieces for all I care. In fact, such an event would actually strengthen my view on religion in this situation.

Wow, all this opinions that have no value to you, yet are ready to defend them with time and effort and I bet from where you sit with good dose of emotions. No more comment to this, you just showed your colors without me trying.

How can I look beyond the evidence presented by me when you have presented no such evidence to support your claim at all? In other words, I take this as your withdrawal from this debate and the forfeiting of all arguments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

I cannot make you look and/or see anyting. I can post 100of links. In my library there are at least dosen of books dealing with just this issue, but I am not willing to waste my time on someone who does not care, and even less he cares for humanity from his own comments. Turbo and others have taken time and posted something, which was passed in argument with some rethorics and internet link supporting other point of view. You are welcome for my time. The only problem is that you did not learn anything. Yes you can take this as a personal victory that you selfproclaim and obviously makes you somehow marry and feel good about soundness of your opinions and their supperiority.

Perfect example the depth of your thought about politics.

(Just in case you really don't play just dumb, Roberts Fisk, John Pilger, Scott Ritter, Blum, Chomsky, Cockburn, Kathy Kelly, Charless Sullivan, Greenwald among others are names to look for just in case you decide just to read the other side of the story)

 

[turbo]

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

I am not cynical. I am a realist, and when the entire administration is making the case for war against Iran, including a high ranking official who stated flatly to British diplomats "I hate all Iranians", I get a feeling that an attack is inevitable. Congress is no obstacle to war. They have passed a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, so Bush can claim that he had to attack them in the ongoing "war on terror". The attack will happen, and it will happen before one of the two carrier groups has to re-deploy out of the Persian Gulf for resupply and maintenance. I'm 55, and I remember the lies and deceptions that were used to justify the war against Viet Nam and against Iraq. The political machinations have not changed - just the names of the warmongers.

 

[hserse]

Gentlemen,

These are very nice debate and of course everything is always debatable. It is obviously everyone here has their point of views, no one is winning. I sincerely hope that it is not about winning, but rather try understand from every individuals perspective. Everyone should at least learn that all is relative in nature, even the least of credible arguments that have been posted here. Nothing is absolute! I have learn very much from all of you and that of human nature. It is undeniably that man's nature tend to provide circumstantial arguments to prove one's right (state of relatively) over the others-aren't you glad you didn't sit in Oval office and just in front of a monitor.

As I have stated earlier, however, circumstantial of one's arguments or self righteous that one tends to acknowledge, but in the eyes of your Creator (not associated or relative to any religious sects known to man, but a figurative imagination of man's limit mind) is hypocracy-an argument as to why and how to kill your own brother.
Then again, my above statement is also relative because most may rather believe in Darwin's theory-'survival of the fittest.' Thus, relatively speaking who could blame Bush administration, Imperialism, Conquistador, Colonialism, Third Reich, Allied of WWI &II, Axis Power, Communist, Vietnam, Korea war... etc-everyone's trying to survive. Right now, U.S. holds the title as the fittest and wants to maintain that title and will make sure (not necessarily absolutely relatively) it will.
In conclusion, this debate as to whether Bush Administration should attack Iran should come to a conclusion. It is commendable that everyone apply their ideas, but it's unfortunate that none of our officials, leaders and dignitaries aren't willing or don't have time to listen to the ideas of voiceless revolution. May peace be with you all, and may your descendant transcend above man's hyprocracy.

 

[mjsd]

Gentlemen,

These are very nice debate and of course everything is always debatable. It is obviously everyone here has their point of views, no one is winning. I sincerely hope that it is not about winning, but rather try understand from every individuals perspective. Everyone should at least learn that all is relative in nature, even the least of credible arguments that have been posted here. Nothing is absolute! I have learn very much from all of you and that of human nature. It is undeniably that man's nature tend to provide circumstantial arguments to prove one's right (state of relatively) over the others-aren't you glad you didn't sit in Oval office and just in front of a monitor.

As I have stated earlier, however, circumstantial of one's arguments or self righteous that one tends to acknowledge, but in the eyes of your Creator (not associated or relative to any religious sects known to man, but a figurative imagination of man's limit mind) is hypocracy-an argument as to why and how to kill your own brother.
Then again, my above statement is also relative because most may rather believe in Darwin's theory-'survival of the fittest.' Thus, relatively speaking who could blame Bush administration, Imperialism, Conquistador, Colonialism, Third Reich, Allied of WWI &II, Axis Power, Communist, Vietnam, Korea war... etc-everyone's trying to survive. Right now, U.S. holds the title as the fittest and wants to maintain that title and will make sure (not necessarily absolutely relatively) it will.
In conclusion, this debate as to whether Bush Administration should attack Iran should come to a conclusion. It is commendable that everyone apply their ideas, but it's unfortunate that none of our officials, leaders and dignitaries aren't willing or don't have time to listen to the ideas of voiceless revolution. May peace be with you all, and may your descendant transcend above man's hyprocracy.

only if more ppl in the world think like this, we won't have so many wars...
hserse, I praise your courage to be netural and moderate for it is difficult. Being neutral often means that you are against both sides, hence everyone else. And it this climate of "if you are not with us, then you are against us..." , there seems to be no place for neutrality.

And absolutely! nothing is absolute, as Einstein told us (in another context) everything is relative . If one can put away one's emotions temporarily and think about the root of the problem and not just its symptoms, perhaps one will gain new knowledge and be able to see the point of view of others. Mutual understanding is the key to diplomatic success.

True. (nature of mankind:) hypocrisy, greed and the will to be no. 1 are constantly driving us towards neglecting others, and even suffering and destruction of others. But at the end of the day, one must realize that ONE CAN'T WIN ALL THE TIME, so one must know when to give back, when to share and when to work together for a common good. If you are so confident that you can win always...then, good luck pal, but you will definitely not get my sympathy vote when you are knocked down eventually because by then it is probably your turn to experience what it is like to be trampled upon. And those who trample you will eventually have their turn too if they fail to realize this themselves.

Often in life, unfortunately, lessons can only be learned in the hard way.

 

[BobG]

Getting back to the original question over the chances we will attack Iran (vs. whether we should) ...

I was pretty sure we'd attack Iran before the end of this Summer. I'm a little perplexed by the current situation. We still keep stepping towards an attack, but the timing is getting to the point where Bush has to decide "The hell with the Republican Party" if he decides to attack. He and Cheney don't have to worry about their own political future, so that may well be their attitude. Or does the immediate initial success give Republicans at least a short term boost as long as there isn't time for the adverse affects to surface?

I think Bush and Cheney are pursuing a cultural war between Christianity and Islam that will connect with some in the Republican base, even if the majority see it as insanity. I think they honestly believe this is a bigger issue than Republican/Democrat and won't be to concerned about the effect a war with Iran has on the 2008 elections.

 

[chemisttree]

An attack on Iran could also be viewed as an element of the Surge. The bombing of the Guard in Iran coupled with the inevitable closing and scrutiny of the border could put Iran in a very defensive position which would leave them less effective at exporting terrorism. With el-Baradei's deadlines looming (mid November), I think it is likely that the attack will come either just before (to kill el-Baradei's deal) or just after. Who in the world would come to their defense? Toning down the Iranian influence in Iraq would undoubtedly amplify any good that is coming from the Surge and would allow the Iraqi's a little time to better implement their domestic security apparatus.

 

[Moridin]

You may have nay-sayed something like this, but there is no way you could refute it. The US military and the US intelligence agencies train right-wing terrorists in torture, interrogation, and the application of terror. Yes, terror. Keeping the civilian populace so fearful for their lives and the lives of their families that they will not oppose whatever dictatorship is in power. That is the purpose of terror - to keep the populace cowed through fear and thereby control their behavior. The US government and its intelligence agencies and military have trained terrorists and orchestrated coups in this hemisphere many times in the past century. Their track record is very well-documented and is not in question. The only question is if you will refuse to call these terrorists terrorists because they wear a military uniform of the ruling junta, and they trained in the US. That is a distinction that their victims cannot make.

Of course it is not in question. Yes, the United States has done some nasty things in the past and continues to do so. In this sense, we can swallow Chomsky's thesis as a whole. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for such as the genocidal treatment of Native Americans, couple hundred years of slavery, denial of Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long, long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights violations, the bombing of Cambodia and Sarajevo, refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, refusal to support ban on land mines and refusal to submit to the rulings of the ICC etc. etc. Nothing in my posts should be construed as a denial of this.

My problem is with the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al tries to draw.

"For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots were subjected, on home soil, to the kind of atrocity that they routinely have carried out elsewhere" (Chomsky, 9-11, 2001)

As Sam Harris puts it, Chmosky's analysis is a masterpiece of moral blindness.

"Take the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant: according to Chomsky, the atrocity of September 11 pales in comparison with that perpetrated by the Clinton administration in August 1998. But let us now ask some very basic questions that Chomsky seems to have neglected to ask himself: What did the U.S. government it think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda. Did the Clinton Administration intend to bring about the deaths of thousands of Sudanese children? No. Was our goal to kill as many Sudanese as we could? No. Were we trying to kill anyone at all? Not unless we though members of Al Qaeda would be at the Al-Shifa facility in the middle of the night. Asking these questions about Osama bin Ladin and the nineteen hijackers puts us in a different moral universe entirely

If we are inclined to follow Chomsky down the path of moral equivalence and ignore the role of human intentions, we can forget about the bombing of the Al-Shifa plant, because many of the things we did not do in Sudan had even greater consequences. What about all the money and food we simply never though to give the Sudanese prior to 1998? How many children did we kill (that is, not save) just by living in blissful ignorance of the conditions in Sudan?" (Harris, The End of Faith 2004)

I do not deny the brutal actions that the US has done in the last 200+ years, but what I do deny, is the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al attempts to draw that just isn't there.

I think Bush and Cheney are pursuing a cultural war between Christianity and Islam that will connect with some in the Republican base, even if the majority see it as insanity. I think they honestly believe this is a bigger issue than Republican/Democrat and won't be to concerned about the effect a war with Iran has on the 2008 elections.

I tend to agree with this. It is not really a war on terror.

 

[Huckleberry]

There is a reason that two democratic countries has never (or you would have to search a long time for an example) been to war with each other.

It didn't take very long at all.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

I do not deny the brutal actions that the US has done in the last 200+ years, but what I do deny, is the moral equivalence that Chomsky et. al attempts to draw that just isn't there.

I'm guessing by moral equivalence you mean that the actions that the U.S. has taken in the past are not as immoral as the organizations the U.S. has declared terrorists because the number of deaths is fewer and fewer of them are civilians.

Perhaps you are right, but I think your conclusion is circumstancial. If these organizations had the capability of the U.S. military and the U.S. had the capability of these terrorist organizations, how would the actions be different? I think the difference is in capability and not morality. The two imo are morally equivalent and not capably equivalent.

It also reminds me that the U.S. has killed many more civilians in Iraq than terrorists have killed U.S. civilians. It isn't much of a comfort to me that the U.S. is doing the best it can to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties but can claim moral superiority because the deaths were unintentional. What is important to me is that civilian deaths were inevitable and the U.S. knew the casualties would occur when the war began. The conclusion I draw is that the U.S. government thinks its civilians lives are more valuable than Iraqi civilians lives. For every American citizen killed by a terrorist, X number of foreign civilians must die. No wonder the political reputation of the U.S. overseas is so poor.

 

[Moridin]

If you scroll further down the website you linked to, you will find "Basically It Depends on the Definition". My problem with the attempt at moral equivalence by Chomsky et. al is that it neglects intention.

 

[Huckleberry]

If you scrolled further down my post you would see that I gave my opinion on that issue

edit-that section discusses how the definition of democracy is manipulated to exclude self-proclaimed democratic nations. If definitions are manipulated it is easy to say any nation is not democratic for the purpose of supporting your argument. Ideally, arguments start by agreeing on the definitions. Usually the arguments get their legs removed by the first hurdle and then try to continue over the rest with no success. Basically, if we accept that nations that are self-proclaimed democratic nations have gone to war with each other, then you are wrong. If you wittle down that list of nations by manipulating your definition then you can probably find a way to make your statement true. By doing so it also makes your definition your personal opinion. Opinions should not be claimed as facts.

 

[edward]

The situation with Iran was well covered by Bill Moyers Journal last night.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch.html

There is a very strong religious/political involvement in the "attack Iran now" movement.
The religious right has switched targets from Iraq to Iran in an attempt to bring about the the rapture prophecy.

The Bush Cheney cabal, of course is as always looking at the oil and money end of what may bring about an international crisis.

China has invested heavily in Iran and the Chinese government is not about to roll over and play dead.

 

[baywax]

Egg drop soup anyone?

 

[chemisttree]

China has invested heavily in Iran and the Chinese government is not about to roll over and play dead.

I wonder if China might want to let the situation escalate to the point where Iran is an 'easier' trade partner to deal with. Without the rest of the world trading with them, the $$$ the Chinese are bringing would look very important to Iran. China might even get even lower prices for Iranian oil from this crisis.

 

[edward]

I wonder if China might want to let the situation escalate to the point where Iran is an 'easier' trade partner to deal with. Without the rest of the world trading with them, the $$$ the Chinese are bringing would look very important to Iran. China might even get even lower prices for Iranian oil from this crisis.

China has already paid Iran about 20 billion up front for a guaranteed oil supply at a guaranteed price. China is even developing the oil fields. China is also building it's own terminal port to handle their tankers.

 

[turbo]

China has already paid Iran about 20 billion up front for a guaranteed oil supply at a guaranteed price. China is even developing the oil fields. China is also building it's own terminal port to handle their tankers.

True, and this is a complication in the Bushco plans. Forcing China to temporarily forgo their captive oil supply and start dumping money into the OPEC-controlled world market won't make them happy, and any disruption in their energy supplies will inevitably ripple through the US economy. Bush and Cheney don't care. They are rich and well-connected and they can insulate themselves from a recession/crash and profit from it, just like Bush's grandfathers fostered conflict in Europe by financing Nazi industrialists and prospered from WWII. There is BIG money in wars and the worst warmongers are people who have positioned themselves to rake it in and cheerlead for wars that will benefit them.

 

[edward]

It appears as if that $20 billion Chinese investment in Iran was just for one particular oil field. The numbers go much higher.

TEHRAN - Speaking of business as unusual. A mere two months ago, the news of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth US$3.5 billion, raised some eyebrows in the world press, some hinting that China's economic foreign policy may be on the verge of a new leap forward. A clue to the fact that such anticipation may have totally understated the case was last week's signing of a mega-gas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100 billion. Billed as the "deal of century" by various commentators, this agreement is likely to increase by another $50 billion to $100 billion, bringing the total close to $200 billion, when a similar oil agreement, currently being negotiated, is inked not too far from now.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html

 

[kach22i]

China has already paid Iran about 20 billion up front for a guaranteed oil supply at a guaranteed price. China is even developing the oil fields. China is also building it's own terminal port to handle their tankers.

I just learned something, thanks.

 

[chemisttree]

It appears that China was using its influence on the Security Council to further isolate Iran and soften up it's trade partner. This from the September 14, 2007 International Herald Tribune:

Iran's interior minister said Friday his country has finalized oil and gas projects with China, adding that two-way trade was on target to hit US$20 billion (€14.4 billion) this year among robust commercial ties.

Speaking to reporters after meetings in Beijing, Mostafa Pour Mohammadi gave few details but indicated progress had been made. "We have many big projects on the table," Pour Mohammadi said.

"And in my talks and sessions we finalized our parts and projects in oil fields, gas fields and investing and transporting of fuel between the two countries," the minister said.

This deal has been over 3 years in the making and only now is being finalized.

Economic ties covered areas ranging from power station construction and mining to the building of subways and automobile plants.

"This year, trade will hit US$20 billion (€14.4 billion) and will develop in other fields," Pour Mohammadi said.

Despite the minister's comments, energy deals between Iran and China have repeatedly been held up over price and revenue sharing.

China's true motive for signing on with the Security Council Resolutions is revealed!
China extracts further concessions from its now isolated trade partner, Iran.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/14/business/AS-FIN-China-Iran-Energy.php

Could all this posturing by Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions simply be the public side of a private trade negotiation with China aimed at inflating the current price of energy?

 

[baywax]

It appears that China was using its influence on the Security Council to further isolate Iran and soften up it's trade partner. This from the September 14, 2007 International Herald Tribune:



This deal has been over 3 years in the making and only now is being finalized.



China's true motive for signing on with the Security Council Resolutions is revealed!
China extracts further concessions from its now isolated trade partner, Iran.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/14/business/AS-FIN-China-Iran-Energy.php

Could all this posturing by Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions simply be the public side of a private trade negotiation with China aimed at inflating the current price of energy?

At least they're being up-front, transparent and fully disclosing details about their trade deals. I can't say the same about some other countries.

For instance, we have this big "humanitarian" mission in Afganistan while we are also hammering back the Taliban in mysterious fire fights throughout the country. What we're not being told is that our troops and Afgan civilians are dieing in an effort to protect gas and oil pipelines being constructed to traverse the Afgan provinces from Azerbajan to a port in Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

(disclaimer: This article or section contains information about a planned or expected pipeline. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the construction and/or completion of the pipeline approaches, and more information becomes available.)

 

[edward]

It appears that China was using its influence on the Security Council to further isolate Iran and soften up it's trade partner. This from the September 14, 2007 International Herald Tribune:



This deal has been over 3 years in the making and only now is being finalized.



China's true motive for signing on with the Security Council Resolutions is revealed!
China extracts further concessions from its now isolated trade partner, Iran.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/14/business/AS-FIN-China-Iran-Energy.php

Could all this posturing by Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions simply be the public side of a private trade negotiation with China aimed at inflating the current price of energy?

You may be on to something here. China's Helping the security council to isolate Iran from everyone but China was certainly beneficial to China's Iranian ventures.

 

[edward]

In the late 90's , Unocal was planning the trans Afghan pipeline with Haliburton to be the contractor.

Haliburton now has some competition in the Middle east.

IRAN AND CHINA SIGN AGREEMENT TO EXPLORE OIL IN THE CASPIAN SEA

By Taleh Ziyadov

Wednesday, February 1, 2006


On January 18, Iran's North Drilling Company (NDC) and the Hong Kong-registered China Oilfield Services Ltd. signed an oil-exploration agreement for management, repair, and maintenance of the Alborz semi-floating platform, currently being constructed by the Iranian Offshore Industries Company.

A three-year contract with an estimated cost of $33 million will enable Iran, with China's help, to move its exploration activities to the deep waters of the southern Caspian (MehrNews, January 20). Until now, Iran has been unable to explore fields that were deeper than 90 meters.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370729

I find it more than coincidence that the: "We must attack Iran" talk started at the same time China was negotiating some very big deals with the Iranians.

 

[chemisttree]

At least they're being up-front, transparent and fully disclosing details about their trade deals. I can't say the same about some other countries

Huh?

Did you read the article? I will re-display the pertinent part for you...

Speaking to reporters after meetings in Beijing, Mostafa Pour Mohammadi gave few details but indicated progress had been made. "We have many big projects on the table," Pour Mohammadi said.

Nobody is completely transparent (up-front, fully-disclosing) in any trade negotiation. Thats not a problem in my opinion.

 

[baywax]

Huh?

Did you read the article? I will re-display the pertinent part for you...



Nobody is completely transparent (up-front, fully-disclosing) in any trade negotiation. Thats not a problem in my opinion.

What I'm referring to is the propensity of some governments to "sell" an invasion on the grounds that it will stem terrorism and anti-humanitarianism when it is primarily a strategy to secure energy. We don't see China invading Iran for oil we see Iran and China in negotiations concerning the trade of oil for money. There are no "smoke'em'out" screens about the trade relationship between the two countries. Possibly an example to follow.

 

[chemisttree]

I find it more than coincidence that the: "We must attack Iran" talk started at the same time China was negotiating some very big deals with the Iranians.

Edward, you might find this an interesting read.

This article ("The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker") was written before the 2004 elections.
Some interesting quotes:

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]

Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.

I don't think that it is the Haliburton connection that has the most to gain from a war with Iran (all due respect to Turbo-1's opinion) but rather it is Big Oil and the hegemony of the US Dollar.

 

[turbo]

I don't think that it is the Haliburton connection that has the most to gain from a war with Iran (all due respect to Turbo-1's opinion) but rather it is Big Oil and the hegemony of the US Dollar.

When Big Oil wins, Halliburton wins, and wins big. Their product is not subject to volatility. They are REALLY big in the mechanical side of oil exploration, extraction, equipment maintenance, etc. They are moving their corporate headquarters to the ME to take advantage of the invasion and its aftermath (and to avoid paying taxes in the US). The service/contractor side of the oil industry is very lucrative. They provide equipment, skills, and services to the oil industry such that the oil companies can take those costs off the bottom line (before taxes) and free up the oil companies from having to maintain large stocks of specialized equipment and crews of skilled technicians (with their associated costs) and allow them to pay for these services on an as-needed basis. Halliburton will clean up, and so will a certain Vice President.

 

[chemisttree]

Are they building anything in Iran?

 

[edward]

Are they building anything in Iran?

They were as of 05, despite the fact that they claimed they were pulling out of Iran. Right now they are looking at Iraq. For that matter Haliburton was looking at Iraq before the 03 invasion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

 

[baywax]

Are they building anything in Iran?

Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html

 

[Phred101.2]

I've just joined this thread, has anyone discussed the nuke missile "accident" that happened a while back?

 

[chemisttree]

They were as of 05, despite the fact that they claimed they were pulling out of Iran. Right now they are looking at Iraq. For that matter Haliburton was looking at Iraq before the 03 invasion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

And they want to the Administration to go to war?
Could someone explain that to me?
Why not just let the subsidiary do business as usual? Must be an even more evil and sinister reason I'm sure.
Oh, that's right... Cheney is Satan.

 

[kach22i]

And they want to the Administration to go to war?
Could someone explain that to me?
Why not just let the subsidiary do business as usual? Must be an even more evil and sinister reason I'm sure.
Oh, that's right... Cheney is Satan.

Some have said, and I think in this very thread that the war posturing could just be a ploy to work out oil and oil pipeline deals away from China (and maybe Russia).

The reason Russia and France were against the Iraq war is they held the oil contracts with Saddam. Saddam is gone and so are the old deals.

And also the worry of switching to Euros is gone.

Win, win for Cheney & Co.

 

[kach22i]

what Dr. Ahmadinejad is talking about is Palestinian's right to have they're country. Israel achieved the land of Palestine by force of army, and is keeping it by force.

I've read recently that the land owners of the defunked Ottoman Empire (Turks) sold the land and sometimes disputed lands (disputed ownership) of the Palestinians to the then new Jewish nation. I read this in the context of why Turkey is the only Muslim ally of Israel.

have you ever heard this story?

What do you make of it?

Follow the money..."Palestine's Rural Economy, 1917 - 1939"
http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/rural_palestine.htm

acceptable collateral such as title deeds, required by the Ottoman Agricultural Bank for the tendering of loans, gave the moneylender, who was offered inadequate security for his loans

 

[kach22i]

about 20% of the land has got that way. and jews had 2 persons in Palestinian government. and then Israel attacked Palestine with helps of US and England. and Palestinians has 0 persons in Israeli government!

I've read that Israel also attacked (using terrorism) the ruling British authorities.

 

[baywax]

"Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071017/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc

No mention of oil deals or pipelines in this speech... more of the same BS & bullying.

Is this how the Bushs celebrate Halloween? More terror, war and scarey talk? Is someone going to come up with a better way to secure America's energy future? Try pouring 100 billion into alternate energies research. Try spending 100 billion on getting a deal with Iran. They might even go for it.

 

[Phred101.2]

I wonder how many Americans have dreamed about a nuclear weapon poised over the country since the "accidental deployment"? I know there are warehouses full of things I don't know about the US military somewhere, but I'm pretty sure they don't f**k with the nukes (but that's probably just me). Of course, it was a procedural error, right? Some grunt forgot to take the right form or something?

 

[kach22i]

"Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071017/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc

From the article:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

I hate it when he starts making sense.

Why do the Muslim, Arab Muslim countries hate Israel so much? It's not just about land is it?

It's not like Israel ever did to the Palestinians what the Turks did to the Armenians or the Nazis to the Jews it it?

I've never heard of a Palestinian Genocide or Holocaust, have you?

Lots of Google hits though (Palestinian Genocide Holocaust):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cd=1&q=Palestinian+Genocide+Holocaust&spell=1

 

[kach22i]

that's because western medias boycotted news on Palestinian genocides. tens of thousands Palestinians died in past in their houses, and many are slaughtered everyday.

this is what I saw with my eyes:

I don't trust the news, least of all the US Press, they have failed the nation just as the two party system has.

When you say: this is what I saw with my eyes:, you mean in a documentary movie of some sort, right?