New war brewing: U.S., Israel take dangerous steps
Gandalf Grey
By Eric Margolis
Created Jul 6 2008 - 12:40pm
GENEVA -- The U.S., Israel and Iran are playing a very dangerous game of
chicken that soon could result in a new Mideast war.
U.S. intelligence has concluded that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons.
But the Bush administration and Israel, recently joined by France, are
issuing increasingly loud threats of military action to frighten Iran into
halting its nuclear enrichment program.
Iran insists its nuclear program is entirely for civilian use. Tehran is
alternating between conciliatory statements and threats to retaliate against
any attack by inflicting economic chaos on the global economy. Europe fears
the economic damage a war against Iran would bring far more than Iran's
nuclear program.
Senior Israeli officials are openly threatening to attack Iran's nuclear
installations before President George W. Bush's term expires. Early, this
month Israel staged a large, U.S.-approved exercise using F-15s and F-16s to
rehearse an attack over 900 miles - precisely the distance to Iran's nuclear
facilities.
The highly regarded American journalist Seymour Hersh just confirmed that
the U.S. Congress authorized a $400-million plan to overthrow Iran's
government and incite ethnic unrest. This column reported a year ago that
U.S. and British special forces were operating in Iran, preparing for a
massive air campaign. Israel's destruction of an alleged Syrian reactor last
fall was a warning to Iran.
This week a Pentagon official claimed an Israeli attack on Iran was coming
before year end.
Other Pentagon and CIA sources say a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, with
or without Israel. The Bush administration is even considering using small
tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian targets.
Senior American officers Admiral William Fallon and Air Force Chief Michael
Mosley recently were fired for opposing war against Iran. According to
Israel's media, President Bush even told Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
that he could not trust America's intelligence community and preferred to
rely on Israeli intelligence.
AIR BLITZ
Intensifying activity is evident at U.S. bases in Europe and the Gulf, aimed
at preparing a massive air blitz that may include repeated attacks on 3,100
targets in Iran. Other sources say Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations
will be barraged by cruise missiles.
In Washington, Congress, under intense pressure from the Israel lobby, is
about to adopt a resolution calling for a naval blockade of Iran, an overt
act of war.
Pro-Israel groups have been airing TV commercials claiming Iran is attacking
American troops in Iraq and threatens the U.S.
The Bush administration's last desperate act, its Gotterdammerung, could be
war with Iran. UN weapons inspectors concur with U.S. intelligence that
there is no proof Iran is working on nuclear arms, but the neocon war party
in Washington is determined to loosen a final Parthian shaft by striking
Iran.
Israel asserts the right to maintain its Mideast nuclear monopoly by
destroying all fissile-producing reactors in the region. Iran vows to
retaliate against Israel with its inaccurate Shahab missiles, shut the
Strait of Hormuz and mine the Gulf, producing worldwide financial panic,
severe fuel shortages, and $400-$500 per barrel oil. Iran likely will attack
U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait, and strike Saudi and Kuwaiti
oil facilities. Canadians in Afghanistan could also become targets.
GRAVE DAMAGE
The embattled Bush administration's bunker mentality is leading to war that
will gravely damage long-term U.S. Mideast interests. A single Iranian
missile hit on Israel's reactor would do more damage to the Jewish state
than all its previous wars. Besides, Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear
infrastructure. A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran will guarantee Tehran
decides to build nuclear weapons. Israel and Iran have turned their regional
rivalry into a confrontation that threatens all.
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, not its bombastic President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, controls that nation's military and insists Iran will not
produce nuclear weapons. Israel claims it faces a second holocaust. Iran
says Israel's nuclear forces threaten its existence.
The dogs of war are being unleashed.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
lo yeeOn
if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
nukes;
but
if we and Israel go all out and use nukes to attack Iran, the result
will be so out of control (in ramifications or in direct destruction
of that part of the world) that both Israel and the US (as individual
nations) will not be able to bear it.
So, except for a few delusional people, why would the American people
want to play this game being played out between our government and the
government of Israel? Currently Congress is trying to pass another
bill to stoke the fire of hostility between us and Iran. I know that
some lobbies such as the AIPAC are pressing those ethically challenged
politicians in Washington, D.C., to support such a bill. So, it is up
to us the voters to tell these weaselly politicians that we'll hold
them accountable for a hundred years or a thousand years of disgrace
and rejection America will have to suffer for directly causing such an
unnecessary nuclear aftermath over there in the middle of an ancient
civilization.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <48724660$1$29596$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Patriot Games
wrote:
>I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
> if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
> have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
> nukes;
Of course that's utterly stupid. If we destroy the facilities
currently being used to develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they
continue to develop nuclear weapons?
>but
> if we and Israel go all out and use nukes to attack Iran
Of course that's utterly ridiculous.
mariposas rand mair fheal
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:55:00 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
> wrote:
> >I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
> > if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
> > have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
> > nukes;
>
> Of course that's utterly stupid. If we destroy the facilities
> currently being used to develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they
> continue to develop nuclear weapons?
best guess is the facilities are buried and bunkered
and cant be hit
arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
Patriot Games
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <iin674tlahf1d02ft...@4ax.com>,
> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:55:00 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
>> wrote:
>> >I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
>> > if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
>> > have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
>> > nukes;
>> Of course that's utterly stupid. If we destroy the facilities
>> currently being used to develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they
>> continue to develop nuclear weapons?
>best guess is the facilities are buried and bunkered
>and cant be hit
YOUR "best guess" is absolutely worthless....
We know what and where ALL the facilities are and we have weapons that
can penetrate into underground facilities.
But let's not forget that YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION.
Try again: If we destroy the facilities currently being used to
lo yeeOn
to prevent a war of aggression against Iran. And he is empowered by
the Constitution to fulfil this responsibility because the Senate is
the only institution authorized to make war with another country.
(For more of my comments, please read the text below.)
In article <5qa774531c55abjp9...@4ax.com>,
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:24:16 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
><mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <iin674tlahf1d02ft...@4ax.com>,
>> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:55:00 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
>>> wrote:
>>> >I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
>>> > if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
>>> > have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
>>> > nukes;
>>> Of course that's utterly stupid. If we destroy the facilities
>>> currently being used to develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they
>>> continue to develop nuclear weapons?
>>best guess is the facilities are buried and bunkered
>>and cant be hit
>
>YOUR "best guess" is absolutely worthless....
>
>We know what and where ALL the facilities are and we have weapons that
>can penetrate into underground facilities.
>
>But let's not forget that YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION.
>
>Try again: If we destroy the facilities currently being used to
>develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they continue to develop nuclear
>weapons?
>
Yeah, big ``if'' you've got there. You haven't quantified the
probability of that big ``if'' to actually occur. And neither has
Bush! And that's exactly what Eric Margolis was talking about. And
remember: the rosy scenarios for Iraq and Afghanistan never panned
out.
And just to show how clueless the Bush administration still is: It
can't say when we can fully withdraw from Iraq, even as the Iraqi
government demands that we provide a timetable for the withdrawal in
return for agreeing to ink a security deal we ask for. And this is
more than five years after we unleashed the world's most fiercesome
striking force against that already made-totally-defenseless country.
And Afghanistan has been a drag for even longer, even though they have
absolutely zero airstrike capabilities while we can shoot them any
time and any place we want to.
Each time America goes aggressive aboard without provocation, it
creates a mess, in addition to causing hundreds of thousands of deaths
and many more homeless or maimed. What the American voters who are
tired of being squeezed by a set of expensive wars and an unproductive
and uncompetitive economy need to know is that these wars are the
direct cause of the slump of our economy and that another rosy picture
of destruction will be equally unlikely to be a fairytale success this
time either!!!
And that's what Ron Paul was telling millions of radio listeners about
and that's why Bob Barr called this warmongering madness against Iran
``highly irresponsible and detrimental''.
And so for all who don't want yet another bloody adventure to drag us
down further, we need to call our Congressional representative and
senators to stop this madness before it becomes too late. Sitting on
our hands and let the politicians decide is not an option because at
the minimum, they are being pressured by AIPAC and other lobbies to
get this new misadventure going. We the American people must push
back these war lobbies. In addition, please call Senator Harry Reid's
office and tell him that as the Majority leader in the Senate, he has
an extraordinary responsibility to stop another unprovoked war from
being unleashed from Washington and the Constitution has given him
also the extraordinary power to carry out his responsibility by virtue
of the Senate's war-power act.
Senator Harry Reid's office telephone numbers:
202-224-3542 (DC office)
775-686-5750 (Reno office)
702-388-5020 (Vegas office)
lo yeeOn
========
A couple of notables in the following post:
1) The Congressional Resolution 362, pushed hard by AIPAC and
criticized by Congressman Ron Paul as a "Virtual Iran War
Resolution", has garnered 150 cosponsors since its introduction three
weeks ago, and before the weeklong July 4 break. In the Senate,
sister Resolution 580, introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, was
also gathering momentum.
It shows both how powerful AIPAC is over the DC politicians and how
weaselly these politicians are.
2) [Libertarian presidential candidate and former Congressman Bob
Barr: Attacking Iran Highly Irresponsible and Detrimental:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-highly.html
You can see what the Libertarian Party stands for because their
candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr speak for sanity while the
democrats and republicans speak as weasels, trembling before AIPAC and
big money.
Notice that the embargo resolution is termed a "Virtual Iran War
Resolution" because it amounts to saying you have the goods but you
are not allowed to ship it. It is an affront to the USA if some
country does that to us and we would go to war to break the embargo,
for sure.
After 11 "whereas" to build a casus belli against Iran, House 362
would require a naval blockade to "prohibit the export to Iran of all
refined petroleum products, impose stringent inspection requirements
on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or
departing Iran." It also would ban "the international travel of all
. . ..
lo yeeOn
========
1) Reposting a piece which directly bears on the danger of the game
that our DC politicians are playing in coordination with Israel with
Iran as the target of attack.
Reacting to a piece of Eric Margolis cited below, I wrote:
A futile destructive exercise that can quickly go haywire Re: New war
brewing: U.S., Israel take dangerous steps
I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
nukes;
but
if we and Israel go all out and use nukes to attack Iran, the result
will be so out of control (in ramifications or in direct destruction
of that part of the world) that both Israel and the US (as individual
nations) will not be able to bear it.
So, except for a few delusional people, why would the American people
want to play this game being played out between our government and the
government of Israel? Currently Congress is trying to pass another
bill to stoke the fire of hostility between us and Iran. I know that
some lobbies such as the AIPAC are pressing those ethically challenged
politicians in Washington, D.C., to support such a bill. So, it is up
to us the voters to tell these weaselly politicians that we'll hold
them accountable for a hundred years or a thousand years of disgrace
and rejection America will have to suffer for directly causing such an
unnecessary nuclear aftermath over there in the middle of an ancient
civilization.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <48724660$1$29596$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Gandalf Grey <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
2) [Original post attached here for reference:]
WASHINGTON, July 7 (UPI) -- Is the United States heading into a deadly
confrontation with Iran? Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, the
unsuccessful maverick Republican presidential candidate, warned
millions of radio listeners this is now inevitable. He cited House
Congressional Resolution 362, lobbied hard by the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, as a "Virtual Iran War Resolution."
Since its introduction three weeks ago, and before the weeklong July 4
break, the resolution garnered 150 cosponsors. In the Senate, sister
Resolution 580, introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, was also
gathering momentum.
After 11 "whereas" to build a casus belli against Iran, House 362
would require a naval blockade to "prohibit the export to Iran of all
refined petroleum products, impose stringent inspection requirements
on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or
departing Iran." It also would ban "the international travel of all
Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's
nuclear program."
If passed by both houses, the United States would be at war with Iran
-- alone, without allies, and oil would double in price immediately to
$300 a barrel. The Bush administration has pledged it will keep the
Strait of Hormuz open and protect tankers transporting 25 percent of
the world's daily ocean-borne oil traffic through the 32-mile-wide
strait.
Tanker traffic between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea uses two lanes, each 2 miles wide, for inbound and
outbound ships. Iran's largest naval base, at Bandar Abbas, commands
the northern side of the Strait of Hormuz. Three islands near the
middle of the strait are under Iranian control with naval gun
emplacements and concealed missiles. U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters is
in Bahrain, farther up the Gulf.
Sinking or crippling a couple of the 50 supertankers as they pass each
other every day in the strait would not be much of a challenge for
Iranian gunners. U.S. retaliation by air would follow minutes later
from a carrier in the Gulf of Oman, but meanwhile ship-owners the
world over would ban any attempt to navigate around the shipwrecks. A
barrel of oil would quickly jump to $500 and gas would reach $12 a
gallon, a dollar less than what the Dutch already pay for their
heavily taxed gas in the Netherlands.
Iran's military chiefs warned last Saturday the Islamic Republic would
shut down the Strait of Hormuz and use "blitzkrieg" tactics in the
Gulf if it came under attack. A blockade of Iran would be an act of
war. Last January small Iranian speedboats darted in and out between
three U.S. warships sailing through the strait. Had they been suicide
boats, at least one of the U.S. vessels would have been hit, as the
USS Cole was in Aden in October 2000.
U.S. Navy denials notwithstanding, Iran's capability to close the
Persian Gulf is very real. As the fighting in Lebanon demonstrated two
years ago, Hezbollah militias deployed mobile missile launchers in
large numbers against land-based and naval targets.
Iran has purchased two types of anti-ship cruise missiles from China,
the Silkworm and the C-802, whose capabilities are similar to the
Exocet and Harpoon family of sea-skimming missiles. NATO estimates the
C-802's single shot capability at 98 percent. It was this type of
missile, also known as Yingji-82, Chinese for Eagle Strike, that
scored two direct hits on the Israeli corvette INS Hanit in 2006,
killing four and knocking it out of action.
Some 60 Chinese-made missiles are camouflaged in Iranian coastal
batteries, along with hundreds of less sophisticated but just as
lethal homemade missiles along the Iranian coast from the Gulf of Oman
through the strait and up its Persian Gulf coastline.
While the new commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Vice Adm. William
Gortney, reiterated his predecessor's guarantee to keep 17 million
barrels a day passing through the strategic waterway, a congressional
resolution to blockade Iran's ports would change the correlation of
forces. Iran would see such a decision as an act of war, as any other
country would.
Cooler heads now appear to have gained the upper hand in Tehran. Talk
about talking is Iran's way of muzzling talk about war. At the United
Nations in New York, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told
reporters in subdued tones he had received a proposal from world
powers (5 plus 1, shorthand for the five permanent members of the
Security Council plus Germany) that could prompt a "new process." The
five plus 1 were hoping Iran would agree to freeze uranium enrichment
at 3,000 centrifuges for the duration of the next round of talks,
which Mottaki didn't exclude either. "The first word diplomats are
taught is compromise," he told reporters over lunch.
Mottaki also said he is "optimistic talks on his country's nuclear
program may begin based on a package of incentives offered by the
United States and other countries" and that Iran's official reply
would be forthcoming in a couple of weeks.
The softening of rhetoric was in sharp contrast to firebrand President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of death and destruction against Israel.
But Mottaki explained his president's views on Israel by saying a
grave injustice had been done to the Palestinians to repair the damage
Europeans had done to themselves in World War II.
Mottaki didn't believe the Israelis or the Bush administration would
bomb Iran through January 2009. Neither Israel nor the United States
could afford to incur the wrath of the world while talks are ongoing.
With three former U.S. CENTCOM commanders on record against the
military option, it was hard to see how Israel could strike on its own
-- without shutting the Persian Gulf down.
Stop The AIPAC sponsored "Iran War Resolution"
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=91563
Additional about AIPAC's push for the coming war with Iran via the
following URL (be sure to access the Scott Ritter youtubes linked at
the top of the comments section as well):
AIPAC Pushing US to War with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Hedges: It's Insane to Attack Iran:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack-iran.html
Bob Barr: Attacking Iran Highly Irresponsible and Detrimental:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-highly.html
McCain's loyalty is to Israel first and foremost:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe.html
-------------------------------------
In the following interview, Stiglitz talked about how the wars and the
failing economy we face today are closely related.
The Nathan Gardels interview with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz
Posted March 4, 2008 | 12:51 PM (EST)
Read More: $3000000 War, Joseph Stiglitz, Joseph Stiglitz Iraq, Linda
Bilmes, Three Trillion Dollar War, Breaking Politics News
In the following interview, Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz talks about how
the economy has replaced Iraq as the central issue in the presidential
campaign, but how the two are closely related.
Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001. He is the
author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True
Cost of The Iraq Conflict, just published in the U.S. Stiglitz spoke
with me for my Global Viewpoint on Monday.
Nathan Gardels: The American economy, teetering toward recession or
worse, has replaced the war in Iraq as the key issue in the
presidential campaign. What is the link between U.S. economic woes and
the war in Iraq?
Joseph Stiglitz: The war has led directly to the U.S. economic
slowdown. First, before the U.S. went to war with Iraq, the price of
oil was $25 a barrel. It's now $100 a barrel.
While there are other factors involved in this price rise, the Iraq war
is clearly a major factor. Already factoring in growing demand for
energy from India and China, the futures markets projected before the
war that oil would remain around $23 a barrel for at least a decade. It
is the war and volatility it has caused, along with the falling dollar
due to low interest rates and the huge trade deficit, that accounts for
much of the difference.
That higher price means that the billions that would have been in the
pockets of Americans to spend at home have been flowing out to Saudi
Arabia and other oil exporters.
Second, money spent on Iraq doesn't stimulate the economy at home. If
you hire a Filipino contractor to work in Iraq, you don't get the
multiplier effect of someone building a road or a bridge in Missouri.
Third, this war, unlike any other war in American history, has been
entirely financed by deficits. Deficits are a worry because, in the
end, they crowd out investment and pile up debt that has to be paid in
the future. That hurts productivity because little is left over either
for public-sector investment in research, education and infrastructure
or private-sector investment in machines and factories.
Until very recently, we haven't sharply felt these three factors
depressing the economy because the Federal Reserve Bank responded with
the attitude that they must keep the economy going no matter how much
President Bush spends on the Iraq war. Seeing a weak economy, they kept
interest rates low, flooded the economy with liquidity and looked the
other way when bad home-lending practices were shoveling money out the
door. Regulation was lax. The spigot was wide open. More than $1.5
trillion was taken out of houses in mortgage equity withdrawals alone
over the past five years! That is a huge amount of money to be spent.
At the same time, the U.S. savings rates plummeted to zero. So
everything that was being spent, from rebuilding Iraq to redecorating
the home, was on borrowed money. All the problems were papered over by
borrowing. The bubble ultimately burst when the ratio of housing prices
to income -- that is, what people whose incomes are falling could
afford -- was no longer sustainable.
Now that we can see beyond the bubble, the economic weakness caused by
the Iraq war will be fully exposed. And we'll pay for it in spades --
you might say, with interest.
Gardels: One of the bizarre occurrences of globalization is that the
Chinese, who opposed the Iraq war at the U.N., have ended up as a major
financier of that war by purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds with the huge
dollar reserves they've earned from their trade surplus with the U.S.
So, a consumer democracy with no savings borrows from a market-Leninist
state to combat terrorism and hold free elections in the first Shiite
government in an Arab state in 800 years!
How will we sort it all out?
Stiglitz: And the American people haven't a clue about what they are
supporting, which undermines democracy at home as well.
The ironies don't stop there. This is the first American war since the
Revolutionary War that has been financed from abroad. At the beginning
of every other war, there was real public discourse about which costs
should be put on future generations and which should be paid today --
in taxes. This is the first war where we have (BEGIN ITALICS) lowered
taxes (END ITALICS) as we went to war.
The Iraq war has not only been financed by foreigners, but it is also
the most privatized war in American history. And the results are
egregious. For example, a security contractor -- I'm not talking about
sophisticated engineers here -- makes well over $1,000 a day, often
more than $400,000 a year. A person in the U.S. Army gets paid a
fraction of that amount -- about $40,000 annually -- for performing the
same tasks. Everybody knows any workplace where one person makes 10
times what the other one does for doing the same job is a recipe for
discontent. So, in order to attract soldiers, the U.S. Army has
increased sign-up bonuses. We're competing with ourselves! And that
raises costs all around.
But that is not the end of the absurdity. On top of that, the U.S.
taxpayer is paying disability and death insurance for the contractor,
but then the insurance policies exempt paying in the circumstances of
"hostilities." Who are we buying insurance for? The taxpayer, then, is
essentially paying the insurance companies for nothing. Talk about a
sweet deal!
Gardels: What is the big picture in terms of America's economic
reckoning with the Iraq war?
Stiglitz: The big picture is that, by our most conservative estimates,
this war has cost an almost unimaginable $3 trillion. A more realistic
estimate, however, is closer to $5 trillion once you include all the
downstream "off budget costs" of long-term veteran benefits and
treatment, the costs of restoring the now depleted military to its
pre-war strength, the considerable costs of actually withdrawing from
Iraq and repositioning forces elsewhere in the region.
Then there are the micro costs. For example, if a solider gets killed,
his family gets a $500,000 lifetime payment. That is not included in
the public budget when the costs of the war are considered.
These costs are real and are not going away. You can't continue to
sweep them under the rug. Like your credit card bill, the costs only
grow greater if you ignore them.
Finally, anybody who says we ought to stay in Iraq for even another
four years, no less the next 100 years, as John McCain has suggested,
has to honestly tell the American people how they are going to pay the
$12 billion-a-month bill. Where are we going to come up with another
$1.2 trillion? And is that going to make America more secure?
Let's get out sooner rather than later. Above all, let's stop
fantasizing. It's those fantasies that got us in trouble.
Gardels: In your view, is this economic mess a result of the neo-con
fantasy or a conscious cover-up by the Bush administration to hide the
costs from the American public?
Stiglitz: Both. It was a neo-con fantasy that we'd be greeted with
garlands. We'd only be responsible for cleaning up the rose petals.
Iraqi oil would pay for everything else.
It was also a deliberate attempt to hide the costs from the American
people. How else could you justify not providing the American troops
with the equipment they need? How else could you justify not giving the
Veterans (Benefits) Administration what they need to treat the
disabilities of our heroic soldiers who have been both physically and
psychologically maimed by this war? That can only be interpreted as a
deliberate attempt to hide the real costs of war -- at the expense of
weakening our armed forces, which have been debilitated. The Bush
administration has put short-run political advantage ahead of the
security of the country.
Gardels: The economic costs have now come back to undermine the whole
post-9/11 security effort. When John McCain says he's not interested in
and doesn't understand the economic aspect of things, and only knows
about how to keep America safe, what does that say about his leadership
capability?
Stiglitz: If he doesn't understand the economy, he doesn't understand
security. If we had infinite resources, we might be able to have
perfect security. But America, like every other country, has resource
constraints. That means you need to be smart -- that is, economic --
about the money we spend. If you weaken the American economy, you won't
be able to find the resources you need for security. The two cannot be
separated.
created by charlatan on Mar 06, 2008 at 02:37:54 am Comments: 0
lo yeeOn
to prevent a war of aggression against Iran. And he is empowered by
the Constitution to fulfil this responsibility because the Senate is
the only institution authorized to make war with another country.
(For more of my comments, please read the text below.)
In article <5qa774531c55abjp9...@4ax.com>,
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:24:16 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
><mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In article <iin674tlahf1d02ft...@4ax.com>,
>> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:55:00 +0000 (UTC), acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn)
>>> wrote:
>>> >I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
>>> > if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
>>> > have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
>>> > nukes;
>>> Of course that's utterly stupid. If we destroy the facilities
>>> currently being used to develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they
>>> continue to develop nuclear weapons?
>>best guess is the facilities are buried and bunkered
>>and cant be hit
>
>YOUR "best guess" is absolutely worthless....
>
>We know what and where ALL the facilities are and we have weapons that
>can penetrate into underground facilities.
>
>But let's not forget that YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION.
>
>Try again: If we destroy the facilities currently being used to
>develop nuclear weapons WHERE will they continue to develop nuclear
>weapons?
>
Yeah, big ``if'' you've got there. You haven't quantified the
probability of that big ``if'' to actually occur. And neither has
Bush! And that's exactly what Eric Margolis was talking about. And
remember: the rosy scenarios for Iraq and Afghanistan never panned
out.
And just to show how clueless the Bush administration still is: It
can't say when we can fully withdraw from Iraq, even as the Iraqi
government demands that we provide a timetable for the withdrawal in
return for agreeing to ink a security deal we ask for. And this is
more than five years after we unleashed the world's most fearsome
lo yeeOn
========
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-highly.html
are not allowed to ship'em. It is an affront to the USA if some
country does that to us and we would go to war to break the embargo,
for sure.
After 11 "whereas" to build a casus belli against Iran, House 362
would require a naval blockade to "prohibit the export to Iran of all
refined petroleum products, impose stringent inspection requirements
on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or
departing Iran." It also would ban "the international travel of all
. . ..
lo yeeOn
========
1) Reposting a piece which directly bears on the danger of the game
that our DC politicians are playing in coordination with Israel with
Iran as the target of attack.
Reacting to a piece of Eric Margolis cited below, I wrote:
A futile destructive exercise that can quickly go haywire Re: New war
brewing: U.S., Israel take dangerous steps
I think what Eric Margolis is saying is that
if we or Israel attack(s) Iran on a limited scale, the result would
have exactly the opposite effect of preventing Iran from making
nukes;
but
if we and Israel go all out and use nukes to attack Iran, the result
will be so out of control (in ramifications or in direct destruction
of that part of the world) that both Israel and the US (as individual
nations) will not be able to bear it.
So, except for a few delusional people, why would the American people
want to play this game being played out between our government and the
government of Israel? Currently Congress is trying to pass another
bill to stoke the fire of hostility between us and Iran. I know that
some lobbies such as the AIPAC are pressing those ethically challenged
politicians in Washington, D.C., to support such a bill. So, it is up
to us the voters to tell these weaselly politicians that we'll hold
them accountable for a hundred years or a thousand years of disgrace
and rejection America will have to suffer for directly causing such an
unnecessary nuclear aftermath over there in the middle of an ancient
civilization.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <48724660$1$29596$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
Gandalf Grey <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
2) [Original post attached here for reference:]
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has an extraordinary responsibility
>to prevent a war of aggression against Iran. And he is empowered by
>the Constitution to fulfil this responsibility because the Senate is
>the only institution authorized to make war with another country.
There isn't going to be a War with Iran.
And the US isn't going to be the one who starts it.
We're just gonna help.
Its just some bombing.....