Iran's Redefined Strategy -- Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
Herb Martin
Worth reading and considering if you are curious about Iran's strategy....
=================================================
Iran's Redefined Strategy
By George FriedmanThe Iranians have broken the International Atomic Energy Agency seals on some of their nuclear facilities. They did this very deliberately and publicly to make certain that everyone knew that Tehran was proceeding with its nuclear program. Prior to this, and in parallel, the Iranians began to -- among other things -- systematically bait the Israelis, threatening to wipe them from the face of the earth.
The question, of course, is what exactly the Iranians are up to. They do not yet have nuclear weapons. The Israelis do. The Iranians have now hinted that (a) they plan to build nuclear weapons and have implied, as clearly as possible without saying it, that (b) they plan to use them against Israel. On the surface, these statements appear to be begging for a pre-emptive strike by Israel. There are many things one might hope for, but a surprise visit from the Israeli air force is not usually one of them. Nevertheless, that is exactly what the Iranians seem to be doing, so we need to sort this out.
There are four possibilities:
1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is insane and wants to be attacked because of a bad childhood.
2. The Iranians are engaged in a complex diplomatic maneuver, and this is part of it.
3. The Iranians think they can get nuclear weapons -- and a deterrent to Israel -- before the Israelis attack.
4. The Iranians, actually and rationally, would welcome an Israeli -- or for that matter, American -- air strike.
Let's begin with the insanity issue, just to get it out of the way. One of the ways to avoid thinking seriously about foreign policy is to dismiss as a nutcase anyone who does not behave as you yourself would. As such, he is unpredictable and, while scary, cannot be controlled. You are therefore relieved of the burden of doing anything about him. In foreign policy, it is sometimes useful to appear to be insane, as it is in poker: The less predictable you are, the more power you have -- and insanity is a great tool of unpredictability. Some leaders cultivate an aura of insanity.
However, people who climb to the leadership of nations containing many millions of people must be highly disciplined, with insight into others and the ability to plan carefully. Lunatics rarely have those characteristics. Certainly, there have been sociopaths -- like Hitler -- but at the same time, he was a very able, insightful, meticulous man. He might have been crazy, but dismissing him because he was crazy -- as many did -- was a massive mistake. Moreover, leaders do not rise alone. They are surrounded by other ambitious people. In the case of Ahmadinejad, he is answerable to others above him (in this case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), alongside him and below him. He did not get to where he is by being nuts -- and even if we think what he says is insane, it clearly doesn't strike the rest of his audience as insane. Thinking of him as insane is neither helpful nor clarifying.
The Three-Player Game
So what is happening?
First, the Iranians obviously are responding to the Americans. Tehran's position in Iraq is not what the Iranians had hoped it would be. U.S. maneuvers with the Sunnis in Iraq and the behavior of Iraqi Shiite leaders clearly have created a situation in which the outcome will not be the creation of an Iranian satellite state. At best, Iraq will be influenced by Iran or neutral. At worst, it will drift back into opposition to Iran -- which has been Iraq's traditional geopolitical position. This is not satisfactory. Iran's Iraq policy has not failed, but it is not the outcome Tehran dreamt of in 2003.
There is a much larger issue. The United States has managed its position in Iraq -- to the extent that it has been managed -- by manipulating the Sunni-Shiite fault line in the Muslim world. In the same way that Richard Nixon manipulated the Sino-Soviet split, the fundamental fault line in the Communist world, to keep the Soviets contained and off-balance late in the Vietnam War, so the Bush administration has used the primordial fault line in the Islamic world, the Sunni-Shiite split, to manipulate the situation in Iraq.
Washington did this on a broader scale as well. Having enticed Iran with new opportunities -- both for Iran as a nation and as the leading Shiite power in a post-Saddam world -- the administration turned to Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and enticed them into accommodation with the United States by allowing them to consider the consequences of an ascended Iran under canopy of a relationship with the United States. Washington used that vision of Iran to gain leverage in Saudi Arabia. The United States has been moving back and forth between Sunnis and Shia since the invasion of Afghanistan, when it obtained Iranian support for operations in Afghanistan's Shiite regions. Each side was using the other. The United States, however, attained the strategic goal of any three-player game: It became the swing player between Sunnis and Shia.
This was not what the Iranians had hoped for.
Reclaiming the Banner
There is yet another dimension to this. In 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini deposed the Shah of Iran, Iran was the center of revolutionary Islamism. It both stood against the United States and positioned itself as the standard-bearer for radical Islamist youth. It was Iran, through its creation, Hezbollah, that pioneered suicide bombings. It championed the principle of revolutionary Islamism against both collaborationist states like Saudi Arabia and secular revolutionaries like Yasser Arafat. It positioned Shi'ism as the protector of the faith and the hope of the future.
In having to defend against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s, and the resulting containment battle, Iran became ensnared in a range of necessary but compromising relationships. Recall, if you will, that the Iran-Contra affair revealed not only that the United States used Israel to send weapons to Iran, but also that Iran accepted weapons from Israel. Iran did what it had to in order to survive, but the complexity of its operations led to serious compromises. By the late 1990s, Iran had lost any pretense of revolutionary primacy in the Islamic world. It had been flanked by the Sunni Wahhabi movement, al Qaeda.
The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never trusted it. Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did not want al Qaeda to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had taken the banner from Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had to do this without undermining its geopolitical interests.
Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the reduction of al Qaeda's network and global reach. In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran's clear willingness to collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By the end of 2005, Iran had secured its western frontier as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement for itself and for Shi'ism.
Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami's term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- an heir to Khomeini's tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s -- and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.
Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran's position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran's anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel's existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami's approach.
Khatami was focused on splitting the Western world by dividing the Americans from the Europeans. In carrying out this policy, he had to manipulate the Europeans. The Europeans were always open to the claim that the Americans were being rigid and were delighted to serve the role of sophisticated mediator. Khatami used the Europeans' vanity brilliantly, sucking them into endless discussions and turning the Iran situation into a problem the Europeans were having with the United States.
But Tehran paid a price for this in the Muslim world. In drawing close to the Europeans, the Iranians simply appeared to be up to their old game of unprincipled realpolitik with people -- Europeans -- who were no better than the Americans. The Europeans were simply Americans who were weaker. Ahmadinejad could not carry out his strategy of flanking the Wahhabis and still continue the minuet with Europe. So he ended Khatami's game with a bang, with a massive diatribe on the Holocaust and by arguing that if there had been one, the Europeans bore the blame. That froze Germany out of any further dealings with Tehran, and even the French had to back off. Iran's stock in the Islamic world started to rise.
The Nuclear Gambit
The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume -- or very publicly claim to be resuming -- development of a nuclear weapon. This signaled three things:
1. Iran's policy of accommodation with the West was over.
2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that Sunni states would have to deal with.
3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.
The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. First, building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust and reliable to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The key technologies here are not the ones that build a device but the ones that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system to worry about: range, reliability, payload, accuracy. Iran has a way to go.
A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the 'Stans into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However, there are only two countries that can do something about it. The Israelis don't want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot avoid action because they are the most vulnerable if Iran should develop a weapon. The United States doesn't want Israel to strike at Iran, as that would massively complicate the U.S. situation in the region, but it doesn't want to carry out the strike itself either.
This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an Israeli nuclear force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably not blow up New York. That's why the United States doesn't mind Israel having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power politics, not sharing time in preschool. End of digression.
Intra-Islamic Diplomacy
If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance unless nukes are used. In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.
Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran's point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that's not a bad outcome either.
In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.
Send questions or comments on this article to anal...@stratfor.com.
Get unrestricted access to Stratfor Premium with a FREE 7-day Trial today.
Have intelligence delivered straight to your inbox every day and get 24/7 access to the “Shadow CIA” with Stratfor Premium – yours FREE for an entire week!
As the most comprehensive package of intelligence features available online, Stratfor Premium brings you decision-oriented intelligence so that you can find relevant answers to your toughest questions with:
- In-depth analysis on relevant political, economic, military, and security developments
- Alerts drilling into the significance and direction of course-altering events.
- Exclusive Special Reports and Forecasts, plus much more!
Sign up for your Guest Pass today! Be among the first to receive the advance warning that helps you stay prepared, identify opportunities, and manage risk.
For an entire week, get unrestricted access to the behind-the-scenes intelligence that will add impact to your day-to-day decisions and your long-term prospects. With new reduced subscription rates – now just $39.95 a month – there’s never been a better time to experience the Stratfor advantage first-hand.
Stratfor is ready to keep you informed with intelligence at your fingertips every day – try it now with FREE 7-day access. Click here to find out more now!
Ready to Subscribe? Click here to sign up now.
Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact p...@stratfor.com.
Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Geopolitical Intelligence Report?
betweentheeyes
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
news:Dcjzf.17638$SD1....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Worth reading and considering if you are curious about Iran's strategy....
--
Herb
A lot of stuff and a few things that don't make sense to me .. your comments
appreciated ..
=================================================
Iran's Redefined Strategy
By George Friedman
<snip>
>There are four possibilities:
>
>1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is insane and wants to be
>attacked because of a bad childhood.
>2. The Iranians are engaged in a complex diplomatic maneuver, and this is
>part of it.
>3. The Iranians think they can get nuclear weapons -- and a deterrent to
>Israel -- before the Israelis attack.
>4. The Iranians, actually and rationally, would welcome an Israeli -- or
>for that matter, American -- air strike.
>
I found these options interesting sumations of possibilities
<snip>
****
"The United States has been moving back and forth between Sunnis and Shia
since the invasion of Afghanistan, when it obtained Iranian support for
operations in Afghanistan's Shiite regions. "
Say what?! When, what circumstatnce did we (the United States) obtain
iranian support for operstions in AFghanistan?
****
>This was not what the Iranians had hoped for.
<snip>
>The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and
>Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never >trusted it.
>Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary
>challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did >not want al Qaeda
>to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al
>Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had >taken the banner from
>Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had
>to do this without undermining its >geopolitical interests.
****
Previous paragraph just doesn't make sense. I've not seen anything written
or spoken by Iran on Al Qaeda. Pro, Con or indifferent. I would assume,
although I have no supporting information, that since Al Qaeda was
successful at striking a blow at the United States, Iran would be bending
over backwards to slap the fella's on the back and smoke some rose wood in a
water pipe out back.
****
>Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from
>the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the >reduction of al
>Qaeda's network and global reach.
****
Sorry, complete horse crap. If the author means sitting on your ass and
watching the world go by, then yes, Iran was 'maximizing what it could'. If
the author means 'sitting on your ass and watching the world go by, then
yes, Iran was 'quietly participated in the reduction of Al Qaeda's network
and global reach'
There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
against Al Qaeda.
****
>In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and
capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran's clear willingness to
>collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan
****
Say what?! Again, when did Iran help the United States?
>, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as
>it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By >the end of
>2005, Iran had secured its western frontier
****
'secured its western frontier' ? What is the author talking about? What
political or military move did Iran make in regards to is 'western
frontier'?
****
>as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad
****
'achieved what influence it could in Baghdad' ? Again, what in the heck is
the author talking about. Baghdad didn't have a govenment and was
encountering 70+ incidences of terrorism against any and all bounds of
authority. What 'influence would the author be talking about?
****
>, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to
>reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary >movement
>for itself and for Shi'ism.
****
I don't see and the author doesn't provide anything to back up '[Iran] had
to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement
for itself and for Shi'ism'
****
<snip>
>The Nuclear Gambit
>The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume -- or very publicly
>claim to be resuming -- development of a nuclear weapon. >This signaled
>three things:
>1. Iran's policy of accommodation with the West was over.
>2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real
>challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that >Sunni
>states would have to deal with.
>3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared
>to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.
****
While I don't dispute Items 1 and 2, item 3 is in dispute. The 'risk' Iran
is taking is no more than Usama Bin Laden took when he set out to control a
number of fully fueled commercial aircraft and use them as guide missles.
While a nuclear device will have a factor of 10, 100, 1000 in it's killing
power, the ramifications of such a threat are the same.
No matter how much we would like, if an Iranian supported group were to
detonate a 30 megaton device in NYC, Washington and the US nuclear arsenal
isn't going to launch on Tehran.
****
>The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of
>extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. >First,
>building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear
>weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust >and reliable
>to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The
>key technologies here are not the ones that build a >device but the ones
>that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system
>to worry about: range, reliability, payload, >accuracy. Iran has a way to
>go.
****
I take issue with everyone of those items; 'extreme luck', luck has nothing
to do with Iran's desire to obtain fissionable material and detonate a test
device. 'buildign a nuclear device is not the same ....' Yes it is.
'sufficiently small' .. no it doesn't .. there are a number of options to
get a device onto US soil for an attack and none of those options are in any
way restricted by the 'sufficiently small', 'robust' ro the delivery
system. 'a nuclear device has to sit there and go boom' That is the only
thing I agree with in the author's thoughts.
****
>A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United
>States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the >'Stans into
>this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However,
>there are only two countries that can do something >about it. The Israelis
>don't want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot avoid action
>because they are the most vulnerable if >Iran should develop a weapon. The
>United States doesn't want Israel to strike at Iran, as that would
>massively complicate the U.S. >situation in the region, but it doesn't want
>to carry out the strike itself either.
****
Agree that most of the 'Stans' don't want Iran to be nuclear capability, but
disagree that Israelis 'don't want the grief'. If there is one thing Israel
does well, is eliminate known threats.
****
>This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will
>write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an >Israeli nuclear
>force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably
>not blow up New York. That's why the United >States doesn't mind Israel
>having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power
>politics, not sharing time in >preschool. End of digression.
****
No one that I know even wonders about the U.S. concerns about Israel being
nuclear capable. There were reports not that long ago that the fissionable
material in Israel's nuclear weapons is from a U.S. source.
****
>Intra-Islamic Diplomacy
>If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the
>United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside >chance
>that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance
>unless nukes are used.
****
Complete balderdash!
****
> In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using
> the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no >longer
> clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but
> on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means >that they might
> welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would
> burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and >fighter of Islam.
****
I don't doubt that sentiment, but since it is predicated on a nuclear strike
by Israel of the U.S., the sentiment isn't valid.
****
>Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number
>of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite >group in Iraq
>with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts
>between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. >The Iranians appear to
>be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim
>world that al Qaeda failed to create. From >Tehran's point of view, if they
>get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are attacked
>by Israel or the United States, >that's not a bad outcome either.
>In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the
>Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be >ended.
****
What Iran 'diplomacy' is the author making reference to?
****
> Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf
> of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make >provocative
> moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there
> are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be >able to live with that
> as well.
****
Nothing the author states enforces this conclusion as valid.
<snip>
Jack
> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> against Al Qaeda.
Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
Jack
dump...@hotmail.com
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011306.html
It's not a matter of picking the best option, it's a matter of picking
the least damaging one.
Herb Martin
> "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message Worth reading and
> --
> Herb
>
> A lot of stuff and a few things that don't make sense to me .. your
> comments appreciated ..
>
> =================================================
> Iran's Redefined Strategy
> By George Friedman
>
> <snip>
>>There are four possibilities:
>>
>>1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is insane and wants to be
>>attacked because of a bad childhood.
>>2. The Iranians are engaged in a complex diplomatic maneuver, and this is
>>part of it.
>>3. The Iranians think they can get nuclear weapons -- and a deterrent to
>>Israel -- before the Israelis attack.
>>4. The Iranians, actually and rationally, would welcome an Israeli -- or
>>for that matter, American -- air strike.
>>
>
> I found these options interesting sumations of possibilities
It's always good to remind ourselves that our opponents are
NOT (typically) crazy, insane, or stupid.
>>The Three-Player Game
>>
>>So what is happening?
>>
>>First, the Iranians obviously are responding to the Americans. Tehran's
>>position in Iraq is not what the Iranians had hoped it would be. >U.S.
>>maneuvers with the Sunnis in Iraq and the behavior of Iraqi Shiite leaders
> ****
> "The United States has been moving back and forth between Sunnis and Shia
> since the invasion of Afghanistan, when it obtained Iranian support for
> operations in Afghanistan's Shiite regions. "
>
> Say what?! When, what circumstatnce did we (the United States) obtain
> iranian support for operstions in AFghanistan?
Yes, this was in the news at various times, shortly after the
invasion of Afghanistan. There wasn't a lot of detail and it
wasn't even close to clear that the Iranians were ALWAYS
helping, but it seemed that they did provide SOME blocking
and other support to keep Al Qaeda/Taliban out of Iran.
(Likely they didn't want them, or most of them, either.)
Other vague reports have claimed that Iran has been known
to help separate Al Qaeda from their own pet terrorists (Hamas
etc.) so they protected their own and fed the US some help.
Reports from reliable sources have ALSO claimed that both
Bin Laden and Al Zawari have been in Iran at times.
> ****
>
>>This was not what the Iranians had hoped for.
>
> <snip>
>
>>The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and
>>Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never >trusted
>>it. Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary
>>challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did >not want al Qaeda
>>to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al
>>Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had >taken the banner from
>>Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it
>>had to do this without undermining its >geopolitical interests.
> ****
> Previous paragraph just doesn't make sense. I've not seen anything
> written or spoken by Iran on Al Qaeda. Pro, Con or indifferent. I would
> assume, although I have no supporting information, that since Al Qaeda was
> successful at striking a blow at the United States, Iran would be bending
> over backwards to slap the fella's on the back and smoke some rose wood in
> a water pipe out back.
Not if they see themselves as "Militant Islam" and do not want
Al Qaeda, Wahabis, or anyone else to take that mantle.
Also note that Al Qaeda "woke up the US" and RUINED Iran's
quiet game. The one where they quietly screw the US whenever
they can and quietly help the US when they must or when they see
advantage.
Without Al Qaeda's INCREDIBLY STUPID attack on of 9/11
the US would not have ARMIES on both the Eastern and Western
flanks of Iran.
We would still be relegated to the Gulf, maybe airbases in Saudi
Arabia (which were already becoming untenable prior to the
Iraq invasion), and PERHAPS small forces in Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
> ****
>>Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from
>>the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the >reduction of al
>>Qaeda's network and global reach.
> ****
> Sorry, complete horse crap. If the author means sitting on your ass and
> watching the world go by, then yes, Iran was 'maximizing what it could'.
> If the author means 'sitting on your ass and watching the world go by,
> then yes, Iran was 'quietly participated in the reduction of Al Qaeda's
> network and global reach'
I don't see how you dismiss the intelligence activities of the
Iranians among the Shia of Iraq....
> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> against Al Qaeda.
There are certainly reports of both -- documented, perhaps not.
But we have heard this from fairly reliable sources from time to
time.
> ****
>
> >In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and
> capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran's clear willingness to
> >collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan
>
> ****
> Say what?! Again, when did Iran help the United States?
I will have to try to find some reminders, but this has been
quietly reported at times.
>>, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as
>>it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By >the end of
>>2005, Iran had secured its western frontier
>
> ****
> 'secured its western frontier' ? What is the author talking about? What
> political or military move did Iran make in regards to is 'western
> frontier'?
> ****
> >as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad
I am not sure what is meant here either. This was not the
really interesting portion (to me.)
> ****
> 'achieved what influence it could in Baghdad' ? Again, what in the heck
> is the author talking about. Baghdad didn't have a govenment and was
> encountering 70+ incidences of terrorism against any and all bounds of
> authority. What 'influence would the author be talking about?
> ****
Contacts with Shia and infiltration of agents would be part of this.
>>, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to
>>reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary >movement
>>for itself and for Shi'ism.
> ****
> I don't see and the author doesn't provide anything to back up '[Iran] had
> to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary
> movement for itself and for Shi'ism'
> ****
That may be analysis. It certainly seems logical.
> <snip>
>>The Nuclear Gambit
>
>>The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume -- or very publicly
>>claim to be resuming -- development of a nuclear weapon. >This signaled
>>three things:
>
>>1. Iran's policy of accommodation with the West was over.
>>2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real
>>challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that >Sunni
>>states would have to deal with.
>>3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared
>>to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.
>
> ****
> While I don't dispute Items 1 and 2, item 3 is in dispute. The 'risk'
> Iran is taking is no more than Usama Bin Laden took when he set out to
> control a number of fully fueled commercial aircraft and use them as guide
> missles. While a nuclear device will have a factor of 10, 100, 1000 in
> it's killing power, the ramifications of such a threat are the same.
>
> No matter how much we would like, if an Iranian supported group were to
> detonate a 30 megaton device in NYC, Washington and the US nuclear arsenal
> isn't going to launch on Tehran.
> ****
Don't bet on that one however. We might not launch nuclear,
but those large cargo bombs can certainly mess up the center
of a city too.
I have wondered what a EMP bomb would do to an underground
nuclear reactor or fuel site....
I wonder how deep it must be to ward of the effects on every
piece of critical eletronics.
>>The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of
>>extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. >First,
>>building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear
>>weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust >and reliable
>>to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The
>>key technologies here are not the ones that build a >device but the ones
>>that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system
>>to worry about: range, reliability, payload, >accuracy. Iran has a way to
>>go.
>
> ****
> I take issue with everyone of those items; 'extreme luck', luck has
> nothing to do with Iran's desire to obtain fissionable material and
> detonate a test device. 'buildign a nuclear device is not the same ....'
> Yes it is. 'sufficiently small' .. no it doesn't .. there are a number of
> options to get a device onto US soil for an attack and none of those
> options are in any way restricted by the 'sufficiently small', 'robust'
> ro the delivery system. 'a nuclear device has to sit there and go boom'
> That is the only thing I agree with in the author's thoughts.
> ****
They are nothing like putting it in a plane or, better, on the end of a
missile
and just shooting it where you want it to go.
Shipping it UPS (cargo ship really) is not nearly as likely to work,
and may leave a LOT more evidence if you get caught.
>>A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United
>>States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the >'Stans
>>into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb.
>>However, there are only two countries that can do something >about it. The
>>Israelis don't want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot
>>avoid action because they are the most vulnerable if >Iran should develop
>>a weapon. The United States doesn't want Israel to strike at Iran, as that
>>would massively complicate the U.S. >situation in the region, but it
>>doesn't want to carry out the strike itself either.
>
> ****
> Agree that most of the 'Stans' don't want Iran to be nuclear capability,
> but disagree that Israelis 'don't want the grief'. If there is one thing
> Israel does well, is eliminate known threats.
That is not his point. Not whether Israel (or the US) WILL DO IT,
but whether they would PREFER to AVOID doing so.
Israel really does NOT want the grief but they can take it if they
must. So can we, with Bush still in office. Hilary, or a [insert
random Democrat here] is an entirely different issue.
> ****
>
>>This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will
>>write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an >Israeli nuclear
>>force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably
>>not blow up New York. That's why the United >States doesn't mind Israel
>>having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power
>>politics, not sharing time in >preschool. End of digression.
>
> ****
> No one that I know even wonders about the U.S. concerns about Israel being
> nuclear capable. There were reports not that long ago that the
> fissionable material in Israel's nuclear weapons is from a U.S. source.
> ****
That aside was directed at idiots (like we see here) who say such
stupid things -- they were trying to preempt those stupid emails.
>>Intra-Islamic Diplomacy
>
>>If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the
>>United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside
>> >chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of
>>assurance unless nukes are used.
>
> ****
> Complete balderdash!
Not complete, but there are mixed reports. It is NOT going to
be a surgical strike a la Israel against the Iraqi reactor.
It will be much more complicated and might not be complete.
Most facilities CAN be found (or they aren't very important.)
Most can be removed but some are hardened underground.
There are however reports that the results of attacking Saddam's
bunkers have been folded back into as bunker buster technology
improvements and that now we CAN GET DEEP ENOUGH.
Notice that this is a large air fleet strike stealth AND with cruise
missiles so it may be beyond the capabilities of the Israelis due
to scope.
Both the US and Israel will do their UTMOST to avoid using
Nuclear Weapons.
> ****
>
>> In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using
>> the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no >longer
>> clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy,
>> but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means >that they
>> might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It
>> would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and >fighter of
>> Islam.
>
> ****
> I don't doubt that sentiment, but since it is predicated on a nuclear
> strike by Israel of the U.S., the sentiment isn't valid.
> ****
They might even welcome a conventional strike, especially an
incomplete strike.
>>Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a
>>number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite >group
>>in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are
>>contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. >The Iranians
>>appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the
>>Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From >Tehran's point of view,
>>if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are
>>attacked by Israel or the United States, >that's not a bad outcome either.
>
>>In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the
>>Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be >ended.
>
> ****
> What Iran 'diplomacy' is the author making reference to?
Everything Iran had done as international policitical strategy.
> ****
>
>> Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf
>> of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make >provocative
>> moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there
>> are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be >able to live with that
>> as well.
>
> ****
>
> Nothing the author states enforces this conclusion as valid.
> <snip>
It is an analysis piece. I tend to think it MIGHT be the case,
but if you aren't convince then you aren't convinced.
I am not betting (a lot) on it but it is an interesting place to
begin considering what is REALLY going on....
--
Herb Martin
ianpa...@gmail.com
internal situation in Iran. You mention Hitler. Now H came to power
though the ineffective economic policies of the Wiemar Republic. The
régime in Iran is extremely corrupt, the ordinary Iranian is fed up
with this. Liberal reformers were excluded from the process, leaving
the totally corrupt Rafsanjani or the pure green hot incorruptable
Ahmadinejad. The clergy do not like A because he is taking away their
nice little earners.
History has taught us that wars fequently start because of internal
instability. A is using the West and Israel to help to bolster his
position by attempting to unite all Iranians against the West. That is
the 5th possibility that you have not mentioned.
What should we do? A ground war would be horrendously expensive.
Airstrikes of limited effectiveness. No the logical course might be to
conduct a campaign of destabilization against the régime. To do this
though would involve first class intelligence.
If the clergy are there to be bought, why can'y the CIA through
intermediaries buy a few people, get agents of inflence in and change
policy that way.
With Burgess, Maclean, Philby and Blunt we have had such a campaign
waged against us. Most of these went to Cambridge and all except Philby
were gay. Why can't we do a similar thing now?
anima...@yahoo.com
Those were spies. You are not talking about spying but changing
the internal politics of Iran.
One possible reason for the increased hostility of Iran's
rulers toward the West may be exactly to provoke attacks on
Iran which will unify the people, under their rule, of
course, against the foreign invader. It's not that
different from Bush constantly citing 9/11 to cover up or
justify every failure or misdeed of his administration. Being
religious fanatics they may not mind if Teheran is bombed
flat and millions die -- it's all for the greater glory of God.
I think the opportunity to draw Iran into a better relationship
with the United States has been wasted by the adventures in
Iraq and Afghanistant. I don't think there is any good solution
to the present situation. The Iranian government is probably
trying to develop a bomb. If Israel, America or the West
stop them they will probably have to do it by force, leading
as you point out to a lengthy and very expensive war -- one
which it may be impossible to bring to a satisfactory conclusion.
If they don't stop them, Iran will eventually acquire nuclear
weapons and it's anyone's guess what the political orientation
of the Iranian government will be at that time.
It's too bad no one was watching the store all this
time. Too bad for us, but okay for *our* religious fanatic
rulers.
ianpa...@gmail.com
>the internal politics of Iran.
There are spies and there are "agents of influence". Philby was about
to become head of MI6 when he was finally rumbled. Think about it - A
CIA agent in charge of Iran's intelligence. Anyone go to Isfahan
university and be gay?
I agree that an attack would unite Iranians. We must ensure that
corruption is kept at the top of the agenda, not Great Satans. Any
agent of influence must plus corruption incessently. Ahmadinejad may in
some ways be our friend - don't laugh. He is fighting corruption. The
only way to end corruption is to have a radical change in the nature of
the régime. A may or may not realize this.
Keith W
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137670284.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> With Burgess, Maclean, Philby and Blunt we have had such a campaign
> waged against us. Most of these went to Cambridge and all except Philby
> were gay. Why can't we do a similar thing now?
What makes you think something like this isnt being done ?
If you hear about it they will have failed.
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
betweentheeyes
news:6ADzf.568$2O6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
The 'where' is the post I commented on in Usenet. The author didn't provide
any 'documentation' to support the author's stated position that Iran was
diminishing AlQaeda's strength.
G*rd*n
> >> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> >> against Al Qaeda.
"Jack" <baro...@yahoo.com>:
> > Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
"betweentheeyes" <between...@supportingThe2nd.org>:
> The 'where' is the post I commented on in Usenet. The author didn't provide
> any 'documentation' to support the author's stated position that Iran was
> diminishing AlQaeda's strength.
The theory is that al-Qaeda is Wahhabi, therefore against
the Shiites in general and the Shiite leadership of Iran
in particular, and vice-versa, since they are competing for
leadership of the Muslim struggle against the Great Satan.
Of course they could be playing a more complex game wherein
they both assist and oppose al-Qaeda, covertly, depending on
their plans and interests of the moment. And so could a
number of other governments and private parties concerned
about events in the Middle East. All the usual suspects.
ianpa...@gmail.com
think people can ponder on.
The US won all the battles in Vietnam. The Tet in miliary terms was a
complete drubbing. They lost the war politically. Now irorny of ironies
they have won the war ideologically. Vietnam is becoming capitalist.
Saigon is now Ho Chi Ming City. Will it in the future be called Adam
Smith City or maybe just Saigon.
The only way forward for Iran is a free market system. You cannot get
corruption when you have a proper marketplace with liberal rules. Iran
has many of the features of a command economy. Herb tells us that
Ahmadinejad is no full and got to thye top though merit. In fact he was
a make weight. The establishment wanted Rafsanjani to win and was
fairly certain he would. Liberal reformers of course were not allowed
to stand.
Herb Martin
news:1137748040.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Just one clarification: 'Herb' didn't tell you that; the
article I posted did.
The article was "for consideration" not necessarily something
that even I agree with totally.
[We get so used to trolls it is easy to think that everything that
is posted is designed to "start a fight". <grin> ]
--
Herb Martin
>
i2p6
> <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137748040.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I hope I never hear about it! There is one philosopical point which I
>>think people can ponder on.
>>
>>The US won all the battles in Vietnam.
Son, the U.S. did not win all the battles. Here's a FAQ. 1000 U.S. military
got their ass kicked. (You sound like another Crybaby Vet.)
--------------------------------------------------
2.22 What about the Vietnam vet who boasts "The U.S. never lost a battle"?
He's probably ignorant, even though he "was there".
In war, propaganda (lies) is common by every side.
Here is one battle admitted lost by the U.S. military:
The Battle for Kham Duc
From "U.S. Marines in Vietnam - 1968" (Shulimson, Lt Col Blasiol,Smith,
Capt Dawson): "In their one major success during Mini-Tet (May of 1968)
on 10-11 May 1968, elements of the 2d NVA Division had overrun the
Special Forces camps at Kgog Tavak and Kham Duc".
These two camps had about 1000 U.S. soldiers (Marines and Army) and
about 400 CIDG mercenaries. The Marines and Army were brought in,
along with artillery (105s) just before the battle, due to
"intelligence" from captured VC/NVA, about the impending battle.
From "After Tet" (Ron Spector): "Nothing could disguise the fact that
Kham Duc had been an American defeat." (p.175)
During the battle, MACV had directed all available air support to Kham
Duc. Seventh Air Force Commander General W.W. Momyer called for a
"Grand Slam" maximum effort. There were fighters and attack planes
from Pleiku, Da Nang, Cam Ranh Bay, and Phu Cat and from bases in
Thailand. At times there were twenty fighters over Kham Duc, with 2
forward air controllers at opposite sides of the Kham Duc runway.
After the defeat of the U.S. military, 60 B-52s, the entire force
available in Vietnam, leveled Kham Duc.
When it was all over, the U.S. military was gone and the Vietnamese
held the ground.
---------------------
ianpa...@gmail.com
point, that History often turns out very diferently to what anyone
expects.
I think there is little doublt that the US was generally sucessful in
the narrow military sphere, but that did not ensure victory, nor did
victory ensure long term ideological sucess.
The US beat Sadaam Hussein rather easily, is making heavy weather of
the insurgency. Long term democracy in Iraq will depend very much on
what happens in Iran.
Howard C. Berkowitz
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget that another power bloc in Iran is the bazaari, the
traditional merchants and effectively the keepers of the market.
Command economy is the last thing in the world in their minds, but
historically, they stay low profile although having a distinct
identity.
Herb Martin
news:11t1l2t...@corp.supernews.com...
> Herb Martin wrote:
>
>> <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137748040.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I hope I never hear about it! There is one philosopical point which I
>>>think people can ponder on.
>>>
>>>The US won all the battles in Vietnam.
>
> Son, the U.S. did not win all the battles. Here's a FAQ. 1000 U.S.
> military
> got their ass kicked. (You sound like another Crybaby Vet.)
>
Not a big deal, but please be a little more careful with
your quotes and responses -- the above was NOT my
claim, but rather Ian's; you wrote in reply to my message
and probably need to be a bit more specific.
--
Herb Martin
"i2p6" <nos...@rr.net> wrote in message
news:11t1l2t...@corp.supernews.com...
ianpa...@gmail.com
will, they will have the right insticts to make use of it.
The question is what can the West do? In war command tends to be the
order of the day. If the US lacks the strength to go all the way and
impose a new order a la Iraq, it must be careful how it proceeds.
Pressure must be applied - Yes, but raw military presssure could be
counterproductive in reinforcing command and the present corrupt rgime.
Tank Fixer
on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:20:34 GMT,
Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Mike P
> In article <6ADzf.568$2O6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:20:34 GMT,
> Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
>
>
>>betweentheeyes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
>>>against Al Qaeda.
>>
>>Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
>
>
> Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
>
Hey I want to know where there is no documented support for it as well.
That way I won't be able to read it. :-P
Mike
Jack
>>> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
>>> against Al Qaeda.
>> Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
>
> Do you realize how dumb that question is?
Comfy in your two-dimensional world?
Jack
frisbie...@yahoo.com
Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article <6ADzf.568$2O6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:20:34 GMT,
> Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
>
> > betweentheeyes wrote:
> >
> > > There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> > > against Al Qaeda.
> >
> > Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
>
> Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
>
It's a great idea! You could have a library of everything that is
unknown.
Tank Fixer
on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:27:01 -0500,
AUK Registrar cj...@mxyzptlk.net attempted to say .....
> In <iJ_Af.20435$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Jack
> Snug in your logic-free environment?
He has a particularly effective clean room.
All white
Padded
Nice comfy jacket too
Tank Fixer
on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:29:34 GMT,
Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
> Tank Fixer wrote:
My reality is just fine.
Does you're have a redish tinge ?
Tank Fixer
on 23 Jan 2006 05:11:46 -0800,
frisbie...@yahoo.com frisbie...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
I think that is where some of these folks get their information.
Jack
>>>>> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
>>>>> against Al Qaeda.
>>>> Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
>>> Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
>>>
>> It's a great idea! You could have a library of everything that is
>> unknown.
>
> I think that is where some of these folks get their information.
I can't decide what is more amusing: the responses themselves to my
simple question, or the fact that some of the responders may be actual
fans of Chomsky.
Apparently there _is_ "no documented support", as everyone has (some
even a little cleverly) sidestepped giving an answer as to where,
precisely, it might not be found.
Jack
Tank Fixer
on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:21:34 GMT,
Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
> Tank Fixer wrote:
>
> >>>>> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> >>>>> against Al Qaeda.
> >>>> Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
> >>> Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
> >>>
> >> It's a great idea! You could have a library of everything that is
> >> unknown.
> >
> > I think that is where some of these folks get their information.
>
> I can't decide what is more amusing: the responses themselves to my
> simple question, or the fact that some of the responders may be actual
> fans of Chomsky.
I'm sure some are fan's of his.
The rest think he's a putz.
> Apparently there _is_ "no documented support", as everyone has (some
> even a little cleverly) sidestepped giving an answer as to where,
> precisely, it might not be found.
The fruit of all of Chomsky's died with Trotsky
Howard C. Berkowitz
Fixer <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In article <yPiBf.16133$Yu.1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:21:34 GMT,
> Jack baro...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
>
> > Tank Fixer wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> There isn't any documented support for Iran doing anything to, for or
> > >>>>> against Al Qaeda.
> > >>>> Where, exactly, is there no "documented support"?
> > >>> Do you realize how dumb that question is ?
> > >>>
> > >> It's a great idea! You could have a library of everything that is
> > >> unknown.
> > >
> > > I think that is where some of these folks get their information.
> >
> > I can't decide what is more amusing: the responses themselves to my
> > simple question, or the fact that some of the responders may be actual
> > fans of Chomsky.
>
> I'm sure some are fan's of his.
> The rest think he's a putz.
>
>
> > Apparently there _is_ "no documented support", as everyone has (some
> > even a little cleverly) sidestepped giving an answer as to where,
> > precisely, it might not be found.
>
> The fruit of all of Chomsky's died with Trotsky
In fairness, I have two things to say about Chomsky. First, he made
brilliant contributions to computational linguistics. Second, if I get
too upset, I can think of Ramsey Clark and reflect that Dante had
multiple circles of the Hells.
Grantland
>The fruit of all of Chomsky's died with Trotsky
>
Got neocon?
google neocon trotsky
Grantland
got Bolshevik?
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/
Book Reviews
The Jewish Century
Reviewed by Kevin MacDonald
Tank Fixer
on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:37:31 GMT,
Grantland mit...@iafrica.com attempted to say .....
Quiet Fascist
Grantland
>In article <43d681b7...@ct-news.iafrica.com>,
> on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:37:31 GMT,
> Grantland mit...@iafrica.com attempted to say .....
>
>> Tank Fixer <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The fruit of all of Chomsky's died with Trotsky
>> >
>> Got neocon?
>>
>> google neocon trotsky
>
>Quiet Fascist
>
Eat my feces Bolshevik.
Grantland
got braindeath?
In its attempt to establish a world empire dominating every nation on the
planet, the U.S. has exhausted its ability to finance the expansion and the
country now faces imminent financial collapse. From all indications, it looks
like 2006 will spell the end for America.
Consider these five important points:
Point #1 The U.S., Great Britain and Israel are preparing to attack Iran. As it
appears the main reason for invading Iraq was to stop it from selling oil in
Euros, likewise Iran has plans to dump the dollar come March 2006.
Point #2 U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a warning recently that the
U.S. Government is on the verge of collapse - as the statutory debt limit
imposed by Congress of $8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February
- the government would then be unable to continue its normal operations.
Considering the current total U.S. debt stands at $8.162 trillion dollars, once
the official debt ceiling ($8.184 trillion) is reached, the U.S. government’s
credit abroad (its borrowing power) is gone. Those countries (mainly China) who
presently keep America afloat by holding U.S. Treasury Notes, will most likely
no longer continue doing so.
Point #3 Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers (probably all other U.S.
banks too) have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to
respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy -
specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of
Homeland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may
have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals and other
valuables will not be released to U.S. citizens. The bank employees have been
strictly prohibited from revealing the banks’ new "guidelines" to anyone.
(however, employees have been talking to friends and family)
The next time you visit your bank, ask them about it - then ask yourself, why is
this information being kept secret from customers and the public - what’s really
going on?
Point #4 FEMA has activated and is currently staffing its vast network of empty
internment camps with armed military personnel - unknown to most Americans,
these large federal facilities are strategically positioned across the U.S.
landscape to "manage" the population in the event of a "terrorist" attack, a
civilian uprising, large-scale dissent ,or an insurrection against the
government. Some of these razor-wired facilities have the capacity of detaining
a million people.
Point #5 The Patriot Act and the US Senate’s vote to ban habeas corpus (Nov
14th) - along with George W. Bush having signed executive orders giving him sole
authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse
Comitatus Act, have together pretty much destroyed any notions of freedom and
justice for Americans.
Summary: The U.S. economy is broken, the United States is bankrupt - the
unchecked spending by this administration, the illegally waged wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of unprecedented weapons and military build-up -
have all contributed to an irreversible emergency which is threatening our
nation’s existence and our very lives.
Hospitals are closing, major corporations are declaring bankruptcy and/or moving
their companies overseas, the monopolized news media spews nothing but lies, and
our fearless leaders have turned out to be only ruthless criminals hell-bent on
destabilizing our country and robbing us all.
Be aware - we stand at the threshold of total ruin - the international bankers
and war profiteers care little for our lives and families - these demons worship
money and all things vile and evil - they have very much to gain from war,
misery, disease, famine, chaos and death (our deaths).
We are right on the edge - the Treasury is already overextended - the U.S.
government cannot (and will not) care for its own citizens’ needs, nor secure
our borders against illegal aliens - plus, the whole "terrorist" thing is a
cruel hoax perpetrated against a trusting citizenry - and only designed to
instill fear and garner support for the genocide taking place in Iraq.
Should America (along with British & Israeli forces) launch a war against Iran,
or another country, without yet paying for, or even recovering from the current
losses in Iraq and elsewhere - the costs of such of an invasion will overwhelm
an already crippled economy and push the U.S. over the edge into oblivion.
Question: Considering the U.S. Treasury Notes that China currently holds (which
keeps the U.S. economy going)...
Do you think China will continue to support a country’s economy (the U.S.) whose
military launches a nuclear strike against its neighbor (Iran) - thus delivering
a blanket of radioactive fallout over western Chinese provinces - killing
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its citizens?
I think not.
Factoring in the aforementioned points of "preparation" engineered by U.S.
authorities, I’d say there’s a stinking rat in the woodpile ...can you smell it
too?
http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/world-news/collapse-of-u.s.-economy-imminent-200601223513/
Chris Morton
>got braindeath?
How could he? You've cornered the market, Ernst Roehm...
What is a Nazi?
A Nazi is above all else, a craven coward.
A Nazi is afraid to compete with others as
equals because he knows he can't measure up.
A Nazi is afraid of his own inadequacy, so
he wants to murder his betters.
A Nazi is afraid of the truth, so he wants
to murder those who tell it.
A Nazi is afraid of history, so he wants to
murder the past, to wipe out the knowledge
of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National Socialism.
Finally, a Nazi is afraid of the power of
educated, informed adults. Freedom of
choice terrifies him... which is why he
chooses minor children as sexual partners.
He can't interact with competent adults in
a consensually sexual way. He needs to be
able to impose himself on a helpless victim,
be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a
mental hospital.
These are the things that a Nazi is, and
there's nothing polite or honest about it.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Grantland
>In article <43d75a82...@ct-news.iafrica.com>, Grantland says...
>
>>got braindeath?
>
>A Nazi
Nazi?
>
>A Nazi
>
>A Nazi
smellybum smellybum smellybum!
wally