Bolton: U.S. Should Bomb Iranian Terrorist Training Camps
D. Spencer Hines
Gangbusters!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------------
John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
The Telegraph
6 May 2007
John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for
US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in
Iraq.
Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards
victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian
response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage
inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.
“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to
show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most
prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to
draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”
Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner
circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions
that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to
Iraqi fighters.
A US military spokesman revealed last week that the elite Quds Force of Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards had drafted in personnel from Lebanon’s Hizbollah to
train fighters from Iraq’s Shia militias.
Colonel Donald Bacon, a spokesman for the coalition in Baghdad, said
captured fighters had told interrogators that thousands of Iraqi fighters
were undergoing training in the Islamic Republic.
The main camp is located near the town of Jalil Azad, near Tehran, according
to coalition officials.
The capture of Qais Khazali, a major figure in the Shia insurgency alongside
Ali Mussa Daqduq, a senior Lebanese Hizbollah guerilla, last year yielded a
treasure trove of information on Hizbollah’s activities in Iraq.
“Ali Mussa Daqduq confirmed Lebanese Hizbollah were providing training to
Iraqi Special Group members in Iran and that his role was to assess the
quality of training and make recommendations on how the training could be
improved,” said Col Bacon. “In this role, he travelled to Iraq on four
occasions and was captured on his fourth trip.”
Five Britons kidnapped in Iraq are believed to have been put under the
control of Quds Force agents after failed attempts to barter the men for
Khazali and Daqduq’s freedom.
The importance of the Quds Force to stability in Iraq was demonstrated last
week when a five-member Iraqi delegation was sent to Tehran to meet with its
commander, General Ghassem Soleimani. The delegation was despatched by the
Iraqi government to plead for an end to Iranian meddling in its enfeebled
neighbour.
Tiglath
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> Gangbusters!
>
That's what the world need more of: WAR.
Some posters just ooze the arrogance that America has a right to
aggressive imperialism, yet Iran has no right, apparently, to have a
voice in what happens in its backyard.
We shouldn't be there. The overwhelming majority of Americans
finally agree in this unequivocally.
If the last six years have not convinced the poster on this point,
nothing will.
D. Spencer Hines
Gangbusters!
Yes, this may be the next shoe to drop in teaching the fanatical leaders in
Tehran some necessary lessons -- or there may be a critical naval incident
in the Gulf first.
Douglas Eagleson
What is demanded is a call for a JUstice, in Iraq.
Right now there is no Justice system for the state is a civil war.
Denying it is a civil war will only cause actions like those proposed,
war act. A war act when civil act was demanded will only cause a
mistake. A single WRONG life taken by the uSA.
ONE WRONG LIFE TAKEN, is a call for arms.
SO add up the wrong in IRAQ.
WHO calls for arms now?
A widening of the conflict is proposed by many, just to evade JUSTICE.
I was wondering of the training camps in Afganistan hit back in the
1990's Who was really struck? WHO was there? Who knows or cares?
We here are failing.
Tiglath
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> Gangbusters!
>
> Yes, this may be the next shoe to drop in teaching the fanatical leaders in
> Tehran some necessary lessons -- or there may be a critical naval incident
> in the Gulf first.
>
Ahh. The proverbial American Big Bite, and the actual tooth-grinding
chew.
If towel-heads in Iraq can keep us ensnared for years imagine what the
Iranian army could do.
Some old sailors may have to be drafted to help, if ANYONE should
follow the recommendations of that Bolton fool - a man who lives
conflict (his mustache doesn't talk to his hair, for example).
John Briggs
> On May 6, 11:19 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Hmmmmmmm...
>>
>> Gangbusters!
>>
>> Yes, this may be the next shoe to drop in teaching the fanatical
>> leaders in Tehran some necessary lessons -- or there may be a
>> critical naval incident
>> in the Gulf first.
>>
>
> Ahh. The proverbial American Big Bite, and the actual tooth-grinding
> chew.
>
> If towel-heads in Iraq can keep us ensnared for years imagine what the
> Iranian army could do.
>
> Some old sailors may have to be drafted to help, if ANYONE should
> follow the recommendations of that Bolton fool - a man who lives
> conflict (his mustache doesn't talk to his hair, for example).
Similar to Pierre Montreux...
--
John Briggs
Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
terrorist aggressors in this world. A blind man can see it.
--
Claude Hopper :)
? ? ¥
!Jones
Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
Bolton is a moron; is that news?
Jones
D. Spencer Hines
He's certainly no "moron".
DSH
"!Jones" <h...@there.org> wrote in message
news:8ft6249v84lmn6jtm...@4ax.com...
!Jones
Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>John Bolton graduated _summa cum laude_ from Yale.
>
>He's certainly no "moron".
It's a slang term in a derogatory context. As it's used today, the
term doesn't address intelligence; although, it once had that
connotation... from the Greek "moros", or "dull" as in unsharpened
steel.
Jones
!Jones
<a@b.c> wrote:
>I'm reading Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option'. Bolton
>offered limited bombing of Iranian military camps as an alternative to
>all out war. Somebody is going to bomb somebody else sooner or later;
>Bolton's limited bombing sounds reasonable to me.
If I were perfectly honest, I'd just admit that I don't know a great
deal about the man. I'm not, so I won't.
Jones
John Briggs
> offered limited bombing of Iranian military camps as an alternative to
> all out war. Somebody is going to bomb somebody else sooner or later;
> Bolton's limited bombing sounds reasonable to me.
He wants a war that is not an "all out war"?
--
John Briggs
William Black
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zXUUj.244$Nk5...@newsfe15.ams2...
He's bright enough to realise that Iran is beatable but not amenable to
occupation.
He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be catastrophic.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Linthicum
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> Gangbusters!
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
>
"Son of Shock and Awe"? using "precision munitions"?
Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results?
What do you say when the Quds bring in a few hundred orphans to fill
those camps just before the bombing?
D. Spencer Hines
camps that are training terrorists to kill Americans and other coalition
troops is what is important.
Then, if we don't see a behavioral change by the Iranians...
An alternate scenario is the triggering of an incident at sea by the
Iranians.
If they fire on or approach our ships too closely, demonstrating hostile
intent, all bets are off.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g01672$dkk$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:PpVUj.649$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> The THREAT of the bombing of the Iranian terrorist training and equipping
> camps that are training terrorists to kill Americans and other coalition
> troops is what is important.
Well no.
They just go all 'Mao' on you and start talking about 'paper tigers'.
That's the problem with Muslims. If they're not hip deep in dead bodies
they don't believe you're serious.
Getting hip deep in dead bodies in Iran would be suicidal because the US
would be on their own, and the rest of the world, I would hope, would sit
back and await developments.
Hal
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 20:25:09 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam Matt Osborn
>
> >I'm reading Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option'. Bolton
> >offered limited bombing of Iranian military camps as an alternative to
> >all out war. Somebody is going to bomb somebody else sooner or later;
> >Bolton's limited bombing sounds reasonable to me.
>
> If I were perfectly honest, I'd just admit that I don't know a great
> deal about the man. I'm not, so I won't.
>
deliver Bush spin as required. How about him presenting some evidence
of the camps and training and equipment that's believable and
conclusive. He could show it to the UN and get some allies LOL
Maybe Powell and Tenet could show up for the photo op, just like old
times. <G>
This doesn't mean that Iran is not being bad, just that the US *word*
on the international stage is at present worth nothing. The
Bush&Cheney administration has squandered that coin, along with the
US reputation for believing in things like human rights, justice,
democracy, and the rest of what is now seen outside of the US as
purely Hollywood Ameribabble, and cheap political propaganda points.
I wonder if Obama or Hillary has made comment on the US "black
prison" system overseas, or about rendition for torture to US allies
like Syria, or other US foreign programs like kidnappings, drugging
and torturing and disappearing people worldwide etc, or if that is
still of little interest domestically.
Hal
Fred J. McCall
:
:He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be catastrophic.
:
Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
Or is this just more of the Wee Willie Black 'surrender is the only
option that can work' school?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jack Linthicum
Well, if Iran is really behind the Shiia militias would you expect the
militias to react to their patrons being attacked? Like against the
foreign infidel invaders? Which saint do you prefer, Bartholomew or
Valentine? or Abdul Hamid?
Hal
>
> :
> :He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be catastrophic.
> :
>
> Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
>
> Or is this just more of the Wee Willie Black 'surrender is the only
> option that can work' school?
>
is supposed to mean in this case) and bombing Iran? How about the US
leaving it alone until it can prove its case against Iran, like Powel
and Tenet did at the UN? Ha Ha Ha Ha ... I think George's ego just
needs another war, and the Iranians just happen to be handy. I'll bet
you get no significant allies on this adventure, and the (unplanned
for after effect) American death toll will be staggering. Of course
Bush will be out, and bozos like you and his cronies will be blaming
the new Democrat president for the abuses of the last 8 years.
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0gp824h54mek90rv7...@4ax.com...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> :He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be
> catastrophic.
> :
>
> Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
>
> Or is this just more of the Wee Willie Black 'surrender is the only
> option that can work' school?
Not blowing bloody great holes in people's houses to no very good purpose
won't do any good.
Or do you think the US Armed Forces have the capacity to take and hold Iran?
Because 'just bombing' doesn't work. Someone's going to have to go in and
hold onto the place or it'll be a lot worse in a few years.
And after the last performance the USA will be on their own.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:0gp824h54mek90rv7...@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> :
:> :He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be
:> catastrophic.
:> :
:>
:> Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
:>
:> Or is this just more of the Wee Willie Black 'surrender is the only
:> option that can work' school?
:
:Not blowing bloody great holes in people's houses to no very good purpose
:won't do any good.
:
Excuse me? That sentence doesn't seem to make any sense as an answer
to the question.
:
:Or do you think the US Armed Forces have the capacity to take and hold Iran?
:
Wee Willie, why don't you stick with replying to what's actually said
rather than trying to make things up and pretend they were said?
:
:Because 'just bombing' doesn't work. Someone's going to have to go in and
:hold onto the place or it'll be a lot worse in a few years.
:
Perhaps we don't care what kind of a mess Iran is? Knock it back into
the Stone Age frequently enough and it ceases to be a problem for
anyone but the local residents.
:
:And after the last performance the USA will be on their own.
:
You mean after the poor British performance in Southern Iraq, no
doubt...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
fnij...@nospam.net
Do you characters have any idea what a war with Iran would meant?
The US is not a big, scary giant boys -- except in right wing minds.
Attacking Iraq would prove Osama is right, and deliver a billion Muslims
around the world as our enemy. And a few of them will start with cutting
off all the oil then send here. A few more will throw us and our
war-bases off their lands.
From there is all down hill.
In <g01hif$708$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, on 05/09/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>:
>:He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be catastrophic.
>:
>Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
1. Cut off the flow of oil.
2. Throw us off the bases we are using there.
Which means you need a draft and the support of American people to have
the war.
-- Which ain't gonna happen.
You right wing dumbasses lost the vietnam and the Iraq war with the same
thinking.
John Briggs
> Do you characters have any idea what a war with Iran would meant?
>
> The US is not a big, scary giant boys -- except in right wing minds.
> Attacking Iraq would prove Osama is right, and deliver a billion
> Muslims around the world as our enemy. And a few of them will start
> with cutting off all the oil then send here. A few more will throw
> us and our war-bases off their lands.
>
> From there is all down hill.
To be fair, that's what Bolton wants.
--
John Briggs
Fred J. McCall
:In <0gp824h54mek90rv7...@4ax.com>, on 05/09/2008
: at 07:57 AM, Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> said:
:>
:>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>:
:>:He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be catastrophic.
:>:
:>
:>Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
:
:1. Cut off the flow of oil.
:
Great. Let 'em drink it.
:
:2. Throw us off the bases we are using there.
:
We don't have any bases in Iran.
:
:Which means you need a draft and the support of American people to have
:the war.
:
What a silly remark. Why is it you left-wing loons are always calling
for a draft?
:
:You right wing dumbasses lost the vietnam and the Iraq war with the same
:thinking.
:
I see you're as stupid as ever. Back into the eternal darkness,
LeTurd...
--
"Some folks seem to have descended from the chimpanzee later than
others."
-- Kin Hubbard
!Jones
<Spam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What's to know? He's a Bush flunky who got his job because he would
>deliver Bush spin as required.
That's my take on him... "summa cum laude" from Yale notwithstanding.
I'll salute him for that; however, I'm not behind his politics...
although, I support his right to engage in them. I might even read
his book. It's not exactly my highest priority.
I snipped the rest because I don't have any comment. Take that any
way you wish.
Jones
redvet
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>The THREAT of the bombing of the Iranian terrorist training and equipping
>camps that are training terrorists to kill Americans and other coalition
>troops is what is important.
>
>Then, if we don't see a behavioral change by the Iranians...
Now, now, Mr. Hines and Mr. Bolton, you are so last century. What the
americans can do is to neutron bomb the Iranians. It is one of the
more efficient capitalist weapons is it not? It doesn't destroy the
means of production, just the people. I really wish you so called
hawks were much more mind full of the costs involved. You would think
you would have would have learned from Iraq. - redvet
<stuff sniped because it wasn't cost efficient>
William Black
> Perhaps we don't care what kind of a mess Iran is? Knock it back into
> the Stone Age frequently enough and it ceases to be a problem for
> anyone but the local residents.
Because you can't do that without using nukes.
And using nukes is a really great way to destroy what little influence the
USA has left in the world.
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0870b511-d30e-4c4d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I would think that the waterboarding issue would pale in comparison to the
nuking of a whole country ... ;)
Anyway, wouldn't happen. Fortunately, in your country - despite the
arrogant American loudmouths who are crying out for annihilation of
"ragheads" and such - there are cooler heads which would prevail.
Soon enough, anyway, the Dems will (again) be blamed for the Middle East
fiasco ....
- nilita
TMOliver
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> I would think that the waterboarding issue would pale in comparison to the
> nuking of a whole country ... ;)
>
> Anyway, wouldn't happen. Fortunately, in your country - despite the
> arrogant American loudmouths who are crying out for annihilation of
> "ragheads" and such - there are cooler heads which would prevail.
Actually, I suspect we've decided to put the Isrealis on an extnsion of
their long term retainer plan to accomplish that task or determined portions
thereof in our behalf.
>
> Soon enough, anyway, the Dems will (again) be blamed for the Middle East
> fiasco ....
>
Rightfully so. Obama could divert the blame by allowing drilling in ANWR
and using the caribou to feed the poor (or better yet to allow drilling off
Florida's Gulf Coast and in the Catalina Channel, causing the NIMBYites of
both addresses to foam at the mouth and drop dead of apoplexy, raising
collections of estate taxes, and feeding their remains to the poor, labeled
as "Caribou Hash, the cornerstone of a full schoolday breakfast!"
Jack Linthicum
> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Or add Beverly Hills, a proven oil site, to this one:
Million-dollar homes, billion-dollar oil patches make uneasy neighbors
By Michael Martinez | Tribune correspondent
6:47 PM CDT, May 4, 2008
Article tools
* EmailE-mail
* Share
o Digg
o Del.icio.us
o Facebook
o Fark
o Google
o Newsvine
o Reddit
o Yahoo
* PrintPrint
* ReprintReprints
* Post comment
* Text size:increase text sizedecrease text size
LADERA HEIGHTS, Calif. — From his hilltop backyard, Stan Hubbard can
scout one of the country's largest urban oil fields, right in the
heart of Los Angeles sprawl.
Below him, the 436 wells of the 800-acre Baldwin Hills Oil Field are
pumping madly, sucking up black gold that's now worth more than ever,
at nearly $120 a barrel. Every day, thousands of motorists pass the
hillside spread on their way to nearby Los Angeles International
Airport or Culver City's movie studios.
The view from this patio overlooks a growing clash of interests. The
nation's oil boom is vividly on display below, as well as evidence of
the turmoil behind it. In this peculiar spot where $1 million homes
like Hubbard's ring a $1 billion oil patch, residents and drillers are
at odds, with local government mediating.
Hubbard says he keeps his two children, ages 6 and 4, close to home,
fearing the overwhelming fumes and other hazards from the oil field.
Related links
*
Oil rig Oil rig Photos
*
High oil prices an invitation to drill High oil prices an
invitation to drill Graphic
"They need to stop because this isn't going to put a dent in prices,"
Hubbard contended. A physician who bought the house with his wife five
years ago, Hubbard, 53, had hoped parks would replace the pumps, but
Plains Exploration & Production Co. of Houston is now asking Los
Angeles County to drill an average of 53 new wells a year for the next
20 years.
"It doesn't make sense to me. Across the country, I guarantee you, it
won't change anything," Hubbard said.
The incongruity of oil wells adjacent to houses, strip malls or
downtown offices is a legacy of California's heady days as a major oil
producer.
Price shifts outlook
As recently as the early 1990s, many of these urban spreads, including
Baldwin Hills, had been written off as marginal operations because low
double-digit prices per barrel of oil didn't make drilling
economically practical, officials said.
With today's triple-digit prices, however, drilling is viable, and
requests by energy companies for new or stepped-up drilling have
increased by 33 percent over last year, according to Hal Bopp, oil and
gas supervisor with the California Department of Conservation.
Drilling also is up nationwide: The oil and gas industry spent $110
billion to drill about 54,000 wells in exploratory or existing fields
in 2006, the most recent year for which data were available, compared
with $76 billion for 47,500 wells the previous year, according to the
American Petroleum Institute.
Illinois officials say permits for new oil and gas wells are up so far
this year—164 compared with 137 through April 2007, a state
spokeswoman said.
Cities such as Whittier and Long Beach are planning to step up
drilling on municipal-owned tracts. But the development involves a
balancing act with residents who live next to the noise and pollution
of rigs.
"How do you balance the needs of the residents with the fact that
we're oil suckers—the whole country? It would be hypocritical at this
time to say we don't want oil," said Antoine Durr, 42, of Culver City,
who is secretary of the 500-home Culver Crest Neighborhood Association
that is adjacent to the Baldwin Hills site.
In Whittier, the city and Matrix Oil Corp. are studying reopening
Whittier Hills, shuttered 15 years ago, for drilling for as little as
500 barrels a day—not a gusher, but it could help offset the city's
current budget shortfall of $1.5 million, according to City Manager
Steve Helvey and Mike McCaskey, vice president of Matrix.
But Whittier resident Amelia Vogel, 85, says the local hills became
public lands in 1990s for recreational use, supposedly retiring them
from oil extraction.
"To me, it's a big fraud on the people," said Vogel, a retired
navigational instrument mechanic who has been a resident for 32 years.
Long Beach drilled 70 new wells last year and is planning to drill
about 60 more this year where it owns mineral rights. A shortage of
engineers, geologists and drilling rigs keeps the city from additional
drilling, said Curtis Henderson, manager of the city's oil operations.
After residents had complained of noxious fumes at Baldwin Hills, Los
Angeles County officials and the drilling company agreed to a one-year
moratorium on new drilling that will end in June, when officials are
expected to propose new zoning restrictions and regulatory oversight,
officials said.
Striking that balance
Many distressed residents acknowledge that more drilling is
inevitable. The questions are: How much more and how close to home?
The site is also a state mineral reserve zone, which limits the
county's efforts to regulate drilling, officials said.
"We're dealing with an oil company that sometimes in this community
doesn't put its best foot forward but is willing to cooperate with
local, state and federal oversight, by and large," said Mike Bohlke,
assistant chief of staff for Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne
Burke, whose district includes the field. "We have to balance their
right to drill and pump oil with the community's right to live in a
safe and quiet environment."
Scott Winters, a vice president at Plains Exploration & Production,
said the company's plans for more drilling are part of an overall
development strategy and not tied to recent high oil prices.
"We want to continue to be good stewards of natural resources,"
Winters said. "We want to be creative and innovative to meet the
[government's] requirements as well as go beyond the requirements to
satisfy the constituents' concerns."
and
Oil well
Owned by the Venoco Oil Company, an oil well on Beverly's campus can
easily be seen by drivers heading west on Olympic Boulevard towards
Century City. The oil well has drilled most of the oil out of
Beverly's campus and has been slant drilling under many homes and
apartment buildings in Beverly Hills for decades.
As of May 2006, the Beverly Hills High School well was pumping out 400
to 500 barrels a day, earning the school approximately $300,000 a year
in royalties
. <more> wiki
Tiglath
Limited war. That's a bright and original idea.
Jack Linthicum
Well the Ladera Heights and Beverly Hills are proven fields.
Owned by the Venoco Oil Company, an oil well on Beverly's campus can
easily be seen by drivers heading west on Olympic Boulevard towards
Century City. The oil well has drilled most of the oil out of
Beverly's campus and has been slant drilling under many homes and
apartment buildings in Beverly Hills for decades.
As of May 2006, the Beverly Hills High School well was pumping out 400
to 500 barrels a day, earning the school approximately $300,000 a year
in royalties
wiki
and
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oil-rigsmay04,0,1761702.story
chicagotribune.com
Million-dollar homes, billion-dollar oil patches make uneasy neighbors
By Michael Martinez
Tribune correspondent
6:47 PM CDT, May 4, 2008
LADERA HEIGHTS, Calif. — From his hilltop backyard, Stan Hubbard can
scout one of the country's largest urban oil fields, right in the
heart of Los Angeles sprawl.
Below him, the 436 wells of the 800-acre Baldwin Hills Oil Field are
pumping madly, sucking up black gold that's now worth more than ever,
at nearly $120 a barrel. Every day, thousands of motorists pass the
hillside spread on their way to nearby Los Angeles International
Airport or Culver City's movie studios.
The view from this patio overlooks a growing clash of interests. The
nation's oil boom is vividly on display below, as well as evidence of
the turmoil behind it. In this peculiar spot where $1 million homes
like Hubbard's ring a $1 billion oil patch, residents and drillers are
at odds, with local government mediating.
Hubbard says he keeps his two children, ages 6 and 4, close to home,
fearing the overwhelming fumes and other hazards from the oil field.
"They need to stop because this isn't going to put a dent in prices,"
Tiglath
Hmmm. NoGall's severe lacerations must be healing... he feels good
enough to talk shit again.
> :>
> :>Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
> :
> :1. Cut off the flow of oil.
> :
>
> Great. Let 'em drink it.
>
Don't have to, they can leave it underground while they go on living
in luxury as we fight over bicycles.
> :
> :2. Throw us off the bases we are using there.
> :
>
> We don't have any bases in Iran.
>
>
"There" is the Muslim world, not Iran. Get with the program, NoGall.
John Briggs
Depends. How do you limit it?
--
John Briggs
Richard Casady
Enhanced radiation weapons emit most of their energy in old fashioned
flash and blast. Tanks are virtually immune to the heat and blast but
not neutrons. Remember that the 155mm nuclear shell only yields 70
tons.
In short, the neutron bomb will not spare property which will be
destroyed by the majority of the yield, which is not the neutrons.
The thing is a specialist antitank weapon.
Casady
Jack Linthicum
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 03:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On May 6, 7:27 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> >> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> >> Gangbusters!
>
> >> DSH
>
> >> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> >> John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
>
>
> >Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over
> >and expecting different results?
>
> Like absorbing ever more Iranian attacks? Yes, that's insane.
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
You have an Iranian attack to cite?
La N
Hey listen ... many of your countrymen thought Iraq was responsible for
9/11, so I think putting out the odd rumour about Iranian attacks should be
enough to start another war. Will have to bring back some of the old farts
to suit up, though, the forces are spread pretty thin ...
- nilita
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:00v8249skkl03vo2c...@4ax.com...
:
:> Perhaps we don't care what kind of a mess Iran is? Knock it back into
:> the Stone Age frequently enough and it ceases to be a problem for
:> anyone but the local residents.
:
:Because you can't do that without using nukes.
:
Of course you can. This isn't the 1950's, you know...
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:0870b511-d30e-4c4d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:> On May 9, 10:57 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>>
:>> :
:>> :He doesn't realise that if they bomb Iran the reaction will be
:>> catastrophic.
:>> :
:>>
:>> Really? What do you think they'll do about it?
:>>
:>> Or is this just more of the Wee Willie Black 'surrender is the only
:>> option that can work' school?
:>>
:>> --
:>> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
:>> territory."
:>> --G. Behn
:>
:> Well, if Iran is really behind the Shiia militias would you expect the
:> militias to react to their patrons being attacked? Like against the
:> foreign infidel invaders? Which saint do you prefer, Bartholomew or
:> Valentine? or Abdul Hamid?
:
:I would think that the waterboarding issue would pale in comparison to the
:nuking of a whole country ... ;)
:
Nobody but Wee Willie the Red has said anything about 'nuking' anyone,
Nilita.
:
:Anyway, wouldn't happen. Fortunately, in your country - despite the
:arrogant American loudmouths who are crying out for annihilation of
:"ragheads" and such - there are cooler heads which would prevail.
:
:Soon enough, anyway, the Dems will (again) be blamed for the Middle East
:fiasco ....
:
Why is it always the LEFT that starts screaming about having a draft
and nuking people?
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
fnij...@nospam.net
>"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because, unlike you right wing kooks -- we're all smart enough to know
it is wrong and stupid to send people off to die for nothing, and that
starting WWIII is ever dumber.
D. Spencer Hines
Stay Tuned...
DSH
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g0288r$f5u$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> You mean after the poor British performance in Southern Iraq, no
> doubt...
>
A hundred times better than the US performance in central Iraq.
Andrew Swallow
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> You mean after the poor British performance in Southern Iraq, no
:> doubt...
:>
:
:A hundred times better than the US performance in central Iraq.
:
Not so much, no. Apparently the Brits just retired to their laagers
and let the Iranian militias run roughshod over everything.
--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush
fnij...@nospam.net
05/09/2008
Yes. And we have bases in Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that we need and can't
use if the oil supply was cut off and they were attacked by Iran. We also
would be denied the use of the Persian Gulf.
...Its funny how the war-mongers have never figured out that Jimmy Carter
us the one that started the bases that let us go to war in Iraq, and a
right winger is going to get them wiped out.
fnij...@nospam.net
Why don't you right wingers think for once; Any new oil in Alaska is 10
years out if we started after it in the morning. And even then it
wouldn't replace the middle-east oil.
In <4824b4f6$0$5706$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, on 05/09/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
>Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
>:>
>:> You mean after the poor British performance in Southern Iraq, no
>:> doubt...
>:>
>:
>:A hundred times better than the US performance in central Iraq.
>:
>Not so much, no. Apparently the Brits just retired to their laagers and
>let the Iranian militias run roughshod over everything.
Wrong. They decided they did not want to be dying for nothing. The
iraqis in Basra did the same thing. Over 1000 of them -- in battle -- put
down thier arms a couple of weeks back.
Its time you right wign kooks figured out that this is a war that is being
lost and cannot be won. Do it for once.
Jack Linthicum
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On May 9, 6:55 pm, Matt Osborn <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2008 03:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 6, 7:27 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> >> >> Gangbusters!
>
> >> >> DSH
>
> >> >> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> >> >> -----------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
>
> >> >"Son of Shock and Awe"? using "precision munitions"?
>
> >> >Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over
> >> >and expecting different results?
>
> >> Like absorbing ever more Iranian attacks? Yes, that's insane.
>
> >> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
>
> >You have an Iranian attack to cite?
>
> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
> Iran's interests.
>
> But then, we need only to heed Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off
> the map.
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR200...>
>
> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
I think the current group in Washington have shown the difference
between making wild talk and delivering.
Douglas Eagleson
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
>
>
> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On May 9, 6:55 pm, Matt Osborn <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2008 03:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 6, 7:27 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> >> >> Gangbusters!
>
> >> >> DSH
>
> >> >> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> >> >> -----------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
>
> >> >"Son of Shock and Awe"? using "precision munitions"?
>
> >> >Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over
> >> >and expecting different results?
>
> >> Like absorbing ever more Iranian attacks? Yes, that's insane.
>
> >> -- msosborn at msosborn dot com
>
> >You have an Iranian attack to cite?
>
> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
> Iran's interests.
>
> But then, we need only to heed Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off
> the map.
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR200...>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just be forwarned, the context of "wiping the country off the map" is
different from what is commonly portrayed. Iran's president comment
that he wanted everybody resettled in Israel. Moving everybody and
making it another nation.
People intentionally use this comment to try to justify a first
strike, just like Pearl Harbor was was a surpise strike.
So to small conflict escalate and avoid this Pearl harbor image
dilemma is a likely USA tactic.
Start a small war again. We should truly worry. It would be a Russian
supported Iran just like Vietnam was. Or do we just bomb and let them
grovel in the dirt. So if you start a war, how does it end?
See they are small guys, so just bomb them they can not hit back. And
guess what 911 was, somebody hit back.
La N
Kind of like Bush's fan, Colin Campbell, posting at various times that "we
could nuke Iraq to the Stone Age if we wanted to" and versions thereof ....
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
There used to be a very funny cartoon that appeared in, of all places,
the Japan Times. It involved a very small plant, about 3 feet across
that was covered with clouds. The human observers watched them through
a telescope-microscope set up.
The planet was in the throes of a race to the stone age. They would
take some event of the day (1964-5) and turn it into part of their
planet wide effort to lose all trappings of civilization and get back
to hitting each other with rocks. Much of the current crop of
executive branch people sound like that plant.
La N
Most people in the world want to live in peace. It's the arrogant arseholes
of whatever country/culture that continue to pull out the nuke card. Those
hawks should just kill each other off and let the rest of the world live in
peace ...
- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
her -- apparently after sharing her bed for a long weekend.
She had sillybuggers visions of his making an honest woman of her and
sweeping her off to the United States in style and with loving grace.
'Nevah hoppen...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QulVj.1826$KB3.1733@edtnps91...
Richard Casady
wrote:
From that shithole to the stone age, is not a great distance, and we
wouldn't need nukes to do it. B-1, B-2 et al. The F-15 can carry a lot
of bombs, and if they are gone, take care of itself against an enemy
fighter.
Casady
D. Spencer Hines
No need to use nuclear weapons.
DSH
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4874348c....@news.east.earthlink.net...
fnij...@nospam.net
You don't win wars with air-power alone -- and we don't and won't have an
army that can fight another war. --Not to mention the fact that we do not
have verified reason to attack iraq.
But doing so, would assure that the US would become another Nazi Germany
in history.
>Casady
D. Spencer Hines
That's a Comfortable Bourgeois Attitude.
A very large number of people in the world do not want that at all --
including the Islamofascists of 9/11.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:50:40 GMT, "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Most people in the world want to live in peace....
La N
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4874348c....@news.east.earthlink.net...
So, call Iraq a shithole and destroy it, including millions of innocent
civilians. Way to win hearts and minds, US!
- nilita
La N
And, btw, given that the world isn't completely pulverized by now is due to
the fact that *most* people want peace, and there are actually people who
work towards peace and healing which balances off the angry frightened sorts
who are constantly looking for a fight and a reason to kill each other.
- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RGtVj.1541$Yp.908@edtnps92...
> So, call Iraq a shithole and destroy it, including millions of innocent
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iStVj.1543$Yp.1022@edtnps92...
Billzz
Well, I do not think that Colin or Richard were in the Personnel Reliability
Program, or hands-on nuclear weapons, so not to worry.
La N
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:ab23a$48266896$9440b19b$16...@STARBAND.NET...
Its the mindset that concerns me. So many people actually think that way.
But, you're right, one should not worry. There are more than enough cooler
heads in the world, many who drive decisions that stave off war and
annihilation of the human race.
- nilita
William Black
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:immb241dmap2m9d42...@4ax.com...
> I'm sure you're aware of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army operating
> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
> Iran's interests.
And there are similar forces operating in support of the aims of the USA.
But nobody is seriously contemplating going to war with the USA.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4874348c....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> From that shithole to the stone age, is not a great distance, and we
> wouldn't need nukes to do it. B-1, B-2 et al. The F-15 can carry a lot
> of bombs, and if they are gone, take care of itself against an enemy
> fighter.
Amnd exactly what good do you think it would do?
Well, apart from making the Republicans even more unelectable...
fnij...@nospam.net
Hey osborn, you right wing kook -->Iran was a democracy -- like we say we
want -- until Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so oil companies
could get the oil profits.
Your kind of war-mongering and greed doesn't work son.
In <d0fc24lu7spk4ei2v...@4ax.com>, on 05/10/2008
at 07:31 PM, Matt Osborn <a@b.c> said:
>I'm not sure which 'current group' you're referring to nor am I sure
>which talk you consider 'wild'. Perspectives are important when such
>observations are made.
>From my perspective, Iraq was only a prelude to Iran which is a primary
>locus of misanthropy with few redeeming features. Of course, it not the
>people of Iran, but its government to which I refer.
William Black
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:44:49 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>news:immb241dmap2m9d42...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I'm sure you're aware of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army operating
>>> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
>>> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
>>> Iran's interests.
>>
>>And there are similar forces operating in support of the aims of the USA.
>>But nobody is seriously contemplating going to war with the USA.
>
> tyrannical. There are others who believe the USA to be worse than
> Iran. Are you in either of those two camps?
I'm sure that a normal citizen of the USA enjoys far more personal freedoms
that a citizen of Iran.
I'm also sure that the USA has killed far more innocents in the past couple,
of decades than Iran could dream of.
Iran has dreadful foreign policies, but hasn't the money or power to do an
awful lot about it. US foreign policy is outwardly benevolent, but an
awful lot of people do seem to get bombed...
gjan...@nospam.net
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:44:49 +0100, "William Black"
><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>news:immb241dmap2m9d42...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I'm sure you're aware of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army operating
>>> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
>>> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
>>> Iran's interests.
>>
>>And there are similar forces operating in support of the aims of the USA.
>>But nobody is seriously contemplating going to war with the USA.
>There are many who may think that the USA and Iran are equally
>tyrannical. There are others who believe the USA to be worse than Iran.
>Are you in either of those two camps?
Well, show us another nation in history that had right wing kooks making
wars with lies and killing innocent people, because the kooks think the
lies are true?
Need a hint? Want to know what the world did about them?
gjan...@nospam.net
I see you are still afraid to admit that you right wingers are wrong, and
people are dying for nothing because of it.
PS: I'm still waiting windows to become the equal of OS/2 technology.
In <9n5e245stqth40vtq...@4ax.com>, on 05/11/2008
at 10:56 AM, Matt Osborn <a@b.c> said:
>Far out, man, you're really in the groove. Could you please, though, quit
>skipping back to the same groove over and over again.
>Thank you,
>OS/2 Advisor
gjan...@nospam.net
osborn, stop trying to justify an illegal, immoral and un-needed war in
iraq -- that cannot be won, and cannot be continued without end.
We all know what happened. It can't be won and its time to stop lying
about as you right wingers do.
PS: The people of Iraq have also defeated, in addition to war-mongers of
America, the British, and army of Gangus Cong. -- And they did the same
way they are doing it now.
In <6l3e24t5341tqrsim...@4ax.com>, on 05/11/2008
at 10:54 AM, Matt Osborn <a@b.c> said:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:55:23 +0100, "William Black"
><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>news:2omd241on9c8999qk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:44:49 +0100, "William Black"
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>>news:immb241dmap2m9d42...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you're aware of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army operating
>>>>> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
>>>>> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
>>>>> Iran's interests.
>>>>
>>>>And there are similar forces operating in support of the aims of the USA.
>>>>But nobody is seriously contemplating going to war with the USA.
>>>
>>> There are many who may think that the USA and Iran are equally
>>> tyrannical. There are others who believe the USA to be worse than
>>> Iran. Are you in either of those two camps?
>>
>>I'm sure that a normal citizen of the USA enjoys far more personal freedoms
>>that a citizen of Iran.
>>
>>I'm also sure that the USA has killed far more innocents in the past couple,
>>of decades than Iran could dream of.
>>
>>Iran has dreadful foreign policies, but hasn't the money or power to do an
>>awful lot about it. US foreign policy is outwardly benevolent, but an
>>awful lot of people do seem to get bombed...
>I cannot argue that war fighting is wholly limited to the combatants;
>most victims of war have always been the innocent. To the extent that the
>US has singly and in partnership with other nations suppressed tyranny at
>home (US Civil War) and throughout the world (WW I, WW II, Korea, Viet
>Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan), your claims of the relative numbers of innocent
>killed are undoubtedly correct.
>Would it have been better had the US allowed slavery to continue? Or to
>have spared the innocent in favor of Hitler's rise to power? Or Japan's
>hegemony in Asia?
>To what lofty goals do the Iranians attribute their production of nuclear
>arms? I pay them the ultimate respect; I heed their words. Do we prevent
>Iran from gaining weapons? Do we prevent them from using their weapons?
>Or do we clean up the mess after they use their weapons?
>The EU3 has so far met with no success talking the Iranians down from the
>nuclear precipice; the US has had no success talking the EU3 and the rest
>of the UN into imposing effective sanctions against Iran. Iran continues
>is development program.
>No matter which path is followed, innocent blood is certain to be shed.
>There will be a time when the argument is made that the US be held
>responsible for those deaths.
Les Cargill
>> The planet was in the throes of a race to the stone age. They would
>> take some event of the day (1964-5) and turn it into part of their
>> planet wide effort to lose all trappings of civilization and get back
>> to hitting each other with rocks. Much of the current crop of
>> executive branch people sound like that plant.
>
> Most people in the world want to live in peace. It's the arrogant arseholes
> of whatever country/culture that continue to pull out the nuke card. Those
> hawks should just kill each other off and let the rest of the world live in
> peace ...
>
> - nilita
>
>
Nukes are very peaceful weapons. You have to fully embrace the inherent
contradictions of them. By the logic of MAD, they only work when you
don't use them.
We did more ruin in WWII with iron bombs than with uranium.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Hey osborn, you right wing kook -->Iran was a democracy -- like we say we
> want -- until Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so oil companies
> could get the oil profits.
>
> Your kind of war-mongering and greed doesn't work son.
>
>
>
No, it is not "so oil companies could get all the oil profits." Each
person on the planet has a vested stake in the continued flow of oil.
It is required to produce food. Oil is an inherently transnational
product. You either play nice or somebody will get you.
The oil companies act as agents for all people who who consume products
that depend on the production of oil. In a word, everybody.
The US successfully withheld oil from Japan as punishment for
the Rape of Nanking, but the US had some measure of international
support and the wherewithal to prosecute that. Japan was
behaving badly.
We'd also learned from the Bolsheiviks that we did not want another
Red revolution. So yup - we diddled in the affairs of Iran. I can't
say much for how we continued the .. "supervision" of Pahlavi, but
I'm not sure we could have done much anyway.
Look around you - there are already food related riots in the world
based on price changes in the oil markets.
What was in question was whether or not some dictator, particularly
somebody relatively Communist, was to be allowed
to behave piratically with the world's supply of oil.
Southland Corporation had enough of Hugo Chavez and dropped Citgo as
its fuel supplier. The rule - no oil piracy - still holds. And
interestingly enough, Chavez appears to be in a state of "no confidence"
this week.
--
Les Cargill
gjan...@nospam.net
>fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Hey osborn, you right wing kook -->Iran was a democracy -- like we say we
>> want -- until Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so oil companies
>> could get the oil profits.
>>
>> Your kind of war-mongering and greed doesn't work son.
>>
>>
>>
>No, it is not "so oil companies could get all the oil profits." Each
>person on the planet has a vested stake in the continued flow of oil. It
>is required to produce food. Oil is an inherently transnational product.
>You either play nice or somebody will get you.
Son, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are driveling.
Now read the statement again; "Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so
oil companies could get the oil profits." -- Its a fact of history and
its what really happened.
La N
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48272057$0$20204$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Ahhh ... but I've been reading posts of some of your numbskull countrymen
who seem to believe that not using nukes is a waste of a good resource .....
- nilita
Les Cargill
> "Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:2omd241on9c8999qk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:44:49 +0100, "William Black"
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:immb241dmap2m9d42...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm sure you're aware of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army operating
>>>> in Basra and Sadr city. Then there are Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah
>>>> operating in Lebanon. Both of which are supported by Iran and serve
>>>> Iran's interests.
>>> And there are similar forces operating in support of the aims of the USA.
>>> But nobody is seriously contemplating going to war with the USA.
>> There are many who may think that the USA and Iran are equally
>> tyrannical. There are others who believe the USA to be worse than
>> Iran. Are you in either of those two camps?
>
> I'm sure that a normal citizen of the USA enjoys far more personal freedoms
> that a citizen of Iran.
>
They certainly enjoy a higher standard of living. Heck, a citizen
of Mexico enjoys a higher standard of living.
> I'm also sure that the USA has killed far more innocents in the past couple,
> of decades than Iran could dream of.
>
You started it :) I kid, but an awful lot of places where this has
occurred were once territories of former empires.
We "(M)ucked up the end game" in almost every case, but we're
mainly constrained by issues of sovereignty. We are at least
constrained by the portions of that we choose to pay attention
to.
> Iran has dreadful foreign policies, but hasn't the money or power to do an
> awful lot about it. US foreign policy is outwardly benevolent, but an
> awful lot of people do seem to get bombed...
>
As someone rapidly embracing isolationism, I couldn't agree more. But
I admit it's not much of a solution, either. I suspect the rest of the
world would be, overall summed, worse off had we remained isolationist.
I just think it's beyond us to "fix the world", and I cannot for the
life of me figure out how to do that fractionally. The track record
in terms of goals achieved is better than we'd probably like to admit.
If we can't go out, and we can't stay home, then what? I am pretty sure
that somewhere between Kipling and Orwell, we've learned it simply
cannot be done.
So what would happen if we simply mined the harbors, closed the
international parts of the airports and told the rest of the world to
go to whatever sheol they choose? We could even insert Canada as a
trade proxy.
Even if he was toungue in cheek, Anthony Burgess saw Britain galloping
towards status as a Russian satellite, even if only symbolically
and by virtue of *that* sort of socialism. How wrong was he? Did
Reagan/Thatcher change that? DO you today enjoy benefits from that?
--
Les Cargill
William Black
> So what would happen if we simply mined the harbors, closed the
> international parts of the airports and told the rest of the world to
> go to whatever sheol they choose?
Well, you'd stuck with some bloody slow motorcycles and a lot of cars that
won't go round corners.
Seriously, the US economy isn't self contained.
William Black
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> I cannot argue that war fighting is wholly limited to the combatants;
> most victims of war have always been the innocent. To the extent that
> the US has singly and in partnership with other nations suppressed
> tyranny at home (US Civil War) and throughout the world (WW I, WW II,
> Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan), your claims of the relative
> numbers of innocent killed are undoubtedly correct.
Claiming that US actions in WWII were anything but self interest isn't
really valid.
Koreas was an action against agression by the UN.
Vietnam was a direct attack on what was, in reality, a popular government,
and you lost and Iraq and Afhganistan weren't so much attacks on tyrany as
attacks on tyranies that had acted directly against the USA (or possibly not
in the case of Iraq)
> Would it have been better had the US allowed slavery to continue? Or
> to have spared the innocent in favor of Hitler's rise to power? Or
> Japan's hegemony in Asia?
Hitler declared war on the USA, and the USA showed no inclination to
declare war on him at any time...
Slavery is also a more complex subject than it seems. For a start the
slavery in the USA had, by the time it was ended, to be 'internal' and
made up of people born in the USA. the British had already stopped the
international slave trade.
David Nicholls
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 16:52:13 -0500, !Jones <h...@there.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 00:27:02 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer
>>Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps
>>
>>
>
> I'm reading Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not An Option'. Bolton
> offered limited bombing of Iranian military camps as an alternative to
> all out war. Somebody is going to bomb somebody else sooner or later;
> Bolton's limited bombing sounds reasonable to me.
>
Does that mean a "limited bombing on US targets" by Iran would be
'reasonable" - even a bombing of US based airfields used to support the Iraq
war?
David
Les Cargill
> In <4827245f$0$20165$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, on 05/11/2008
> at 12:53 PM, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> said:
>
>
>
>> fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>>> Hey osborn, you right wing kook -->Iran was a democracy -- like we say we
>>> want -- until Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so oil companies
>>> could get the oil profits.
>>>
>>> Your kind of war-mongering and greed doesn't work son.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>> No, it is not "so oil companies could get all the oil profits." Each
>> person on the planet has a vested stake in the continued flow of oil. It
>> is required to produce food. Oil is an inherently transnational product.
>> You either play nice or somebody will get you.
>
> Son, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are driveling.
> Now read the statement again; "Ike sent in the CIA in to destabilize it so
> oil companies could get the oil profits." -- Its a fact of history and
> its what really happened.
>
>
It's patently false. The oil company profits only exist in a
much larger context. Thou Shalt Not Nationalize Oil
Fields. Period. You will attract much unwanted attention
if you do. It's just not a nice thing to do. Watch Chavez for
details.
You're spouting half-baked Stalinist drivel, the sort that's
been debunked for decades, even before Stalin's death.
The Bolshies were the original supply-siders.
And then you ignore the below...
>
>
>
>> The oil companies act as agents for all people who who consume products
>> that depend on the production of oil. In a word, everybody.
>
>> The US successfully withheld oil from Japan as punishment for the Rape of
>> Nanking, but the US had some measure of international support and the
>> wherewithal to prosecute that. Japan was behaving badly.
>
>> We'd also learned from the Bolsheiviks that we did not want another Red
>> revolution. So yup - we diddled in the affairs of Iran. I can't say much
>> for how we continued the .. "supervision" of Pahlavi, but I'm not sure we
>> could have done much anyway.
>
>> Look around you - there are already food related riots in the world based
>> on price changes in the oil markets.
>
>> What was in question was whether or not some dictator, particularly
>> somebody relatively Communist, was to be allowed
>> to behave piratically with the world's supply of oil.
>
>> Southland Corporation had enough of Hugo Chavez and dropped Citgo as its
>> fuel supplier. The rule - no oil piracy - still holds. And interestingly
>> enough, Chavez appears to be in a state of "no confidence" this week.
>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48272866$0$20172$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> So what would happen if we simply mined the harbors, closed the
>> international parts of the airports and told the rest of the world to
>> go to whatever sheol they choose?
>
> Well, you'd stuck with some bloody slow motorcycles and a lot of cars that
> won't go round corners.
>
> Seriously, the US economy isn't self contained.
>
It isn't, but it could become much moreso.
--
Les Cargill
La N
Can you put the Genie back into the bottle? i.e. rescind the outsourcing
of jobs?
- nilita
D. Spencer Hines
be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and they will work to prevent it from
happening -- by any and all means required.
Senator Obama, _au contraire_, has waffled and attempted to "nuance" the
issue. "Nuancing" proved to be fatal for John Kerry in 2004.
Stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, early on, will be a major
issue in the presidential campaign to come.
Stay Tuned...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
La N
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> own exegesis from the intended meaning.
>
Oh, I'm aware of that ... However, posted publicly it just doesn't look very
good to "furriners", especially when one or the other purports to speak on
behalf of the US Government and/or people who tend to take such talk
literally .... Among other things, it lends credence to the stereotype of
Americans being trigger happy bullies ....
- nilita
William Black
"Matt Osborn" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> reasonable. I find that to be highly unlikely.
Let's be reasonable here.
Nobody's going to be bombing anywhere new until after the Presidential
election.