A new war on the horizon?

[Qikdraw]

With the amount of posturing over Iran & Venezuela these days could it be that these two countries are potential targets?

I found an interesting article as well. Linky here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html)

It talks about how Iran may be switching to teh Euro to trade their oil and how that would impact the US dollar.

It also mentions that Venezuela is treatening to shift its oil production to China and stop selling to the US. The US gets about 10% of its oil from Venezuela, so if that happens its bad news.

A combination of both could be very very bad for the US economy.

So with that in mind, could Iran or Venezuela become targets? Cheney apparently had a plan drawn up to attack Iran in the event of ANY terrosit attack on the US, even if Iran did not do it. The administration said little about Pat Robertson's calling for assasination of Chavez. They basically kept saying a private citizen can say what they want. They also been posturing a lot about how both countries are destablizing the regions they are in.

So my call is that either Iran or Venezuela will be attacked next.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

With the amount of posturing over Iran & Venezuela these days could it be that these two countries are potential targets?

I found an interesting article as well. Linky here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html)

It talks about how Iran may be switching to teh Euro to trade their oil and how that would impact the US dollar.

It also mentions that Venezuela is treatening to shift its oil production to China and stop selling to the US. The US gets about 10% of its oil from Venezuela, so if that happens its bad news.

A combination of both could be very very bad for the US economy.

So with that in mind, could Iran or Venezuela become targets? Cheney apparently had a plan drawn up to attack Iran in the event of ANY terrosit attack on the US, even if Iran did not do it. The administration said little about Pat Robertson's calling for assasination of Chavez. They basically kept saying a private citizen can say what they want. They also been posturing a lot about how both countries are destablizing the regions they are in.

So my call is that either Iran or Venezuela will be attacked next.

Qikdraw

[NudeAl]

These political pudits should keep there mouths shut. I am so sick and tired of idiots out there pretending to know what they are talking about when really all they are trying to do is sell hype. Too lure you in with something juicy or trying to scare you or anger you into watching their shows. It just seems ridiculous after a while. What ever happened to responsible journalism?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With the amount of posturing over Iran & Venezuela these days could it be that these two countries are potential targets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What I want to know is who the hell we'd send there if we did start something? We are already spread as thin as can be without enough people in Iraq.

[NudeAl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With the amount of posturing over Iran & Venezuela these days could it be that these two countries are potential targets? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What I want to know is who the hell we'd send there if we did start something? We are already spread as thin as can be without enough people in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, this is the reason that the whole thing is ridiculous. These assinine political pundits are just stirring the pot trying to find even more ways to divide this nation. I bet it will be a long time before any politician thinks going to war to solve a problem is a good idea.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
These political pudits should keep there mouths shut. I am so sick and tired of idiots out there pretending to know what they are talking about when really all they are trying to do is sell hype. Too lure you in with something juicy or trying to scare you or anger you into watching their shows. It just seems ridiculous after a while. What ever happened to responsible journalism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the author of that article is not a political pundid he is a financial journalist. I don't see any hype in what he said at all. I'm the one saying that doing that might lead to a war. Plus that newspaper is far better than 90% of papers I have read in the US. The articles are not at a grade 5 level for one. They are more thought provoking for two.

The US is in very hard financial times. The US has few friends these days. The EU is most probably going to put tarrifs on US goods soon, same with Japan. (over the steel fiasco Bush started) The US's recent comment about how they are not going to abide by a recent NAFTA ruling in favour of Canada means Canada will also most probably put tarrifs on US goods. The US is borrowing massive amounts of money, and China is holding a lot of that debt now.
Iran would be far better served if they used the Euro instead of dollars to sell their oil. The EU would benifit as well. If Iran switches, then how many other Arab nations will switch a long with them?

I'm saying that Iran or Venezuela might be targets because they both have a lot of oil, and the US has been posturing against both of them. Both are also in the position to hurt the US without firing a shot. Both have reason to.

And by the by, if you are after responsible journailsm, you'd be better served by reading overseas newspapers than reading American media, which has completely abandoned any sort of journalistic ethics.

Qikdraw

[Bob S.]

Afghanistan was initiated by 9/11. Iraq was a continuation of Gulf I. We have no legitimate reason to go into either country. It would be a nearly impossible sell to the international community and to the citizens of the US.

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Afghanistan was initiated by 9/11. Iraq was a continuation of Gulf I. We have no legitimate reason to go into either country. It would be a nearly impossible sell to the international community and to the citizens of the US.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that Bob. I mean Iraq was not sold to us a s a continuation of Gulf War 1, there were other reasons we were told. The posturing on Iran & Venezuela sound a lot like the posturing this administration did against Iraq. It starts off small and keeps growing. The talk of Iran & Venezuela has been growing in the last few years.

I'm just saying that if Iran or Venezuela are attacked by the US, remember you heard it here first! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

[usuallylurk]

Iran already accepts a basket of currencies for their oil, and have been doing so since the events of the late 1970s.

I think that there is a lot of hot air concerning an invasion or attack on Venezuela. Ditto sanctions.

However, there should be concerns in Washington about the loss of the value of the US dollar. If Tony Blair's government loses a confidence vote, and Labour loses its grip, the new government will still be US friends BUT will also be prone to have Britain adopt the Euro.

Sanctions? They haven't worked in Cuba. Fidel Castro has survived ten US presidential administrations. While corporate America clamored to have the embargo lifted, Bush decided to tighten the screws more. Corporate America - McDonald's, Burger King, Bank of America, Hyatt Hotels, etc. etc. etc. were all afraid that they'd be left at the starter's gate in the 21st century Cuba.

And they were right. Castro decided earlier this year to outlaw the US dollar in Cuba. This was not just a reflection of a political stance on Castro's part, but also a stern warning to the United States =

"You are no longer the big economic bully you once were. The Canadian dollar, British pound, and Euro will be the hard currencies we will be going with. We don't need your dollars to rebuild the modern Cuba."

And ya know what? They don't. They're going to do it WITHOUT the United States, and in the process become a bigger thorn in the Americans' side than they've ever been.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Afghanistan was initiated by 9/11. Iraq was a continuation of Gulf I. We have no legitimate reason to go into either country. It would be a nearly impossible sell to the international community and to the citizens of the US.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not understand your comment that the U.S. had no legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan -- that was the main base of Al Qaeda and the U.S. had, and has, widespread support for that war.

[hm0504]

Given that U.S. troops are already booked for the foreseeable future, instead of invasions, the U.S. could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and/or blockade its ports and, for Venezuela, launch an anti-Chavez coup.

[NudeAl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
These political pudits should keep there mouths shut. I am so sick and tired of idiots out there pretending to know what they are talking about when really all they are trying to do is sell hype. Too lure you in with something juicy or trying to scare you or anger you into watching their shows. It just seems ridiculous after a while. What ever happened to responsible journalism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the author of that article is not a political pundid he is a financial journalist. I don't see any hype in what he said at all. I'm the one saying that doing that might lead to a war. Plus that newspaper is far better than 90% of papers I have read in the US. The articles are not at a grade 5 level for one. They are more thought provoking for two.

The US is in very hard financial times. The US has few friends these days. The EU is most probably going to put tarrifs on US goods soon, same with Japan. (over the steel fiasco Bush started) The US's recent comment about how they are not going to abide by a recent NAFTA ruling in favour of Canada means Canada will also most probably put tarrifs on US goods. The US is borrowing massive amounts of money, and China is holding a lot of that debt now.
Iran would be far better served if they used the Euro instead of dollars to sell their oil. The EU would benifit as well. If Iran switches, then how many other Arab nations will switch a long with them?

I'm saying that Iran or Venezuela might be targets because they both have a lot of oil, and the US has been posturing against both of them. Both are also in the position to hurt the US without firing a shot. Both have reason to.

And by the by, if you are after responsible journailsm, you'd be better served by reading overseas newspapers than reading American media, which has completely abandoned any sort of journalistic ethics.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies, I misunderstood.

I still find the idea of us deciding to go to war again in another country ridiculous. I doubt that the government is considering this though I suppose you never know. I don't see it as even remotely possible. I mean, they could launch an air strike or something but they wouldn't be able to sustain any sort of a ground war. I think they have enough on thier plate right now. I also feel the military knows this and they would resist any sort of attempt to do this.

[Bob S.]

Albinus, I was stating that we have no reason to go into Iran or Venezuela.

Bob S.

[jon71]

We had no reason to go into Iraq either and that happened. I wouldn't put it past George idiot Bush.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
My apologies, I misunderstood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NBo problem, maybe I should have made myself more clear on that. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still find the idea of us deciding to go to war again in another country ridiculous. I doubt that the government is considering this though I suppose you never know. I don't see it as even remotely possible. I mean, they could launch an air strike or something but they wouldn't be able to sustain any sort of a ground war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I thought the whole Iraq think would not happen. I understood and supported Afganistan, I even understood and supported the build up around Iraq. I thought that pressuring Saddam like Bush did was a smart thing to do, I didn't think that Bush would actually invade after the UN inspectors were given full access and were finding nothing. I was wrong. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think they have enough on thier plate right now. I also feel the military knows this and they would resist any sort of attempt to do this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the military was asked to provide a battle plan for attacking Iran by Cheney. (I mentioned this already) That is a pretty bold step towards the thought of war with Iran. I know plans get drawn up all the time, but still, I feel this is pretty bold.

As for troop levels it is a concern, but I think we have only about 25-30% of our troop levels deployed around the world. If it came to it we could probably up that to around 40-45%, even if it would be difficult.

I just think that regarding the threat both these countries are to the US economy that Bush & co might see it as a viable option.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Given that U.S. troops are already booked for the foreseeable future, instead of invasions, the U.S. could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and/or blockade its ports and, for Venezuela, launch an anti-Chavez coup. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chavez will create his own coup by destroying the Venezuelan economy which he's proving rather good at.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Well the military was asked to provide a battle plan for attacking Iran by Cheney. (I mentioned this already) That is a pretty bold step towards the thought of war with Iran. I know plans get drawn up all the time, but still, I feel this is pretty bold.

As for troop levels it is a concern, but I think we have only about 25-30% of our troop levels deployed around the world. If it came to it we could probably up that to around 40-45%, even if it would be difficult.


Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The military always has plans. That's their job. They have plans on in their archives for invading Canada. They SHOULD have plans for invading Iran; they may need them someday.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The military always has plans. That's their job. They have plans on in their archives for invading Canada. They SHOULD have plans for invading Iran; they may need them someday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cheney asked for plans to be drawn up in the event of a terrorist attack. Plans to attack Iran do not specify that Iran had to have any part of the terrorist attack. Thats more than just the regular plans the army makes up.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Cheney asked for plans to be drawn up in the event of a terrorist attack. Plans to attack Iran do not specify that Iran had to have any part of the terrorist attack. Thats more than just the regular plans the army makes up.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Armies are asked to draw up plans all the time. I'm glad they hava a plan to deal with Iran. That may be necessary. They are seeking nuclear weapons and their foreign ministry displays a 40 foot banner that says "Israel Must Burn"

[NudeAl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well the military was asked to provide a battle plan for attacking Iran by Cheney. (I mentioned this already) That is a pretty bold step towards the thought of war with Iran. I know plans get drawn up all the time, but still, I feel this is pretty bold.

As for troop levels it is a concern, but I think we have only about 25-30% of our troop levels deployed around the world. If it came to it we could probably up that to around 40-45%, even if it would be difficult.

I just think that regarding the threat both these countries are to the US economy that Bush & co might see it as a viable option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I can tell based on what I am seeing all around me in the military we can not support another war at our current troop levels. It would be political suicide at this point to even say something like this in a public forum. I know we have to keep all our options open but we couldn't do this at our current troop levels.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Afghanistan was initiated by 9/11. Iraq was a continuation of Gulf I. We have no legitimate reason to go into either country. It would be a nearly impossible sell to the international community and to the citizens of the US.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree. We had a very good reason to go into Afghanistan - their government supported and harbored al-Qaeda, and refused to stop doing so even after 9/11. In hindsight I think it is fair to say many aspects of the Afghan war has been mishandled (did we catch Osama yet? Mullah Omar?), but we and our NATO allies were fully justified in attacking a regime that made war upon the United States. In fact this was the very first time in NATO history that the Mutual Defense clause was invoked - even Canada and "Old Europe" France and Germany are participants.

Iraq is another matter entirely.

Unless Venezuela makes war on it neighbors or the US, or commits genocide upon its own population, we have no business even entertaining military intervention there.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Afghanistan was initiated by 9/11. Iraq was a continuation of Gulf I. We have no legitimate reason to go into either country. It would be a nearly impossible sell to the international community and to the citizens of the US.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree. We had a very good reason to go into Afghanistan - their government supported and harbored al-Qaeda, and refused to stop doing so even after 9/11. In hindsight I think it is fair to say many aspects of the Afghan war has been mishandled (did we catch Osama yet? Mullah Omar?), but we and our NATO allies were fully justified in attacking a regime that made war upon the United States. In fact this was the very first time in NATO history that the Mutual Defense clause was invoked - even Canada and "Old Europe" France and Germany are participants.

Iraq is another matter entirely.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think his "We have no legitimate reason to go into either country." was reffering to Iran & Venezuela, not Afganistan or Iraq. I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well the military was asked to provide a battle plan for attacking Iran by Cheney. (I mentioned this already) That is a pretty bold step towards the thought of war with Iran. I know plans get drawn up all the time, but still, I feel this is pretty bold.

As for troop levels it is a concern, but I think we have only about 25-30% of our troop levels deployed around the world. If it came to it we could probably up that to around 40-45%, even if it would be difficult.

I just think that regarding the threat both these countries are to the US economy that Bush & co might see it as a viable option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I can tell based on what I am seeing all around me in the military we can not support another war at our current troop levels. It would be political suicide at this point to even say something like this in a public forum. I know we have to keep all our options open but we couldn't do this at our current troop levels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One has to remember that the U.S. cannot continually deploy 100% or so of its troops abroad. Troops need to be rotated so that they have time to recover back at home, get new training, provide non-front support activities and so on.

Anyway, as I've said before, the U.S. desperately needs more troops in Iraq if it hopes to achieve its goals there -- the Administration seems hard pressed to do even that.

[NudePete]

The US has just refused to abide by the latest and final ruling, in a long string of North American Free Trade rulings, concerning its (now) illegal collection of billions of dollars of tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber.

There are rumblings here in Canada of an impending trade war. Can a preemptive US attack on Canada be far behind? That would guarantee short supply lines, lots of time off for your fighting troops, and heck, Canada is known for its world class training and logistics support - we could offer to supply it to you for just a few billion.

You might have heard about gorilla warfare, but I'll bet you yanks have no experience with beaver tactics!

[NudeAl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You might have heard about gorilla warfare, but I'll bet you yanks have no experience with beaver tactics! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that if I remember correctly the Oregon state motto used to be save a tree eat a beaver! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif lol! just kidding

[Captain Zen]

It is a long reading, but much insight about the {upcoming] war with Iran: http://www.rense.com/general67/heading.htm

Schroeder pointed to the evident limits of the much-touted US "superpower," noting that "in the United States, one should realize that the US might, unilaterally, win wars, but cannot win peace, as we have seen in Afghanistan, and even more so in Iraq." (BamS, August 14, 2005)

[Captain Zen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You might have heard about gorilla warfare, but I'll bet you yanks have no experience with beaver tactics! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little more about humans and animals here
http://www.rense.com/general67/zoo.htm

[Captain Zen]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7249

is about the taking over of Syria, the beginning of the real war...