Ww3- World War Three

[Queso]

dig it

 

Cheney's comments underscored a ratcheting up of U.S. rhetoric toward Tehran and came just days after President George W. Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

 

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences," Cheney told a forum organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

 

How can these @$$holes talk about PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST by threatening the WORLD of WORLD WAR THREE.

 

Is this really happening?

 

Money+Power is worse than Meth when it comes to EATING PEOPLES' BRAINS.

[Buffy]

If you'd like to read Cheney's full speech as posted on the White House site its posted here.

 

I'm not sure how you can get any closer to "declaring war" and of course its been pointed out that even President Bush is not using this same rhetoric, so this is tantamount to the VP thinking *he* has the power to declare war: and that goes *way* beyond Unitary Executive Theory!

 

Got war?

Buffy

[Queso]

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.)

 

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

 

and there ya have it folks.

same story over and over.

these guys that supposedly run our country look for little things to exploit (with words like Regime)

make it seem like a problem, or a threat,

and then make this whole patriotic hanging out of it.

 

Cheneys speech was full of neural linguistic programming.

 

Is Iran really a threat to America?

 

Grow up?

[Buffy]

Just to make it clear, a lot/most of American's are sane on this, and even the MSM is calling the administration on this:

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler . . . a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

 

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on? . . .

 

We're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about. The United States government has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years. American officials have barely met with any senior Iranian politicians or officials. We have no contact with the country's vibrant civil society. Iran is a black hole to us -- just as Iraq had become in 2003.

(read more here, h/t Dan Froomkin, Wash Post)

 

Global Climate Change? I'm worried about Global Sanity Change, :phones:

Buffy

[Queso]

So why is America so interested in bullying Iran?

Is it really the nukes?

Is that what everyones so afraid of?

 

Is it the oil?

 

What's really going on?

[HydrogenBond]

The leader of Iran is using the politics of promises to maintain is popular base. Instead of a chicken in every pot, it is a combination of nukes and death to the infidels. This is what his support base wants to hear. He does not have to provide this, since it is like a campaign promise.

 

He is hoping the Democrats win the White House. This would give him a way to gracefully back out the promise. The Republicans are keeping his feet to the fire, sort of setting a deadline, where he has to pee or get off the pot. This alternative is no-win for him, so he prays to Allah that the Democrats will help him save face.

 

The concern is that he could be playing chess. Saving face, combined with a miltary scale down by the US, could allow him time to slip under the radar and then cause a regional problem when America is less prepared. A Democratic campaign promise involves redeploying the troops. The Republicans are are trying to stop the 2 act play, in Act 1. But maybe the Democrats are also making a campaign promise, they don't intend to keep, such that his double cross will become doubled crossed. This could unintentionally lead to peace. Sort of falling on a lottery ticket. Then everyone can pretend they were thinking this all the time.

[CraigD]

So why is America so interested in bullying Iran?

Is it really the nukes?

Is that what everyones so afraid of?

 

Is it the oil?

 

What's really going on?

Please bear in mind that the following is purely my opinion, for which I have not one scintilla of evidence, and doubt that anyone not in some way intimately connected with Congress, the Executive, or the 2 parties has, either.

 

I believe that this is about the 2008 US elections. The Republican party, I believe, fears that it will lose the White House, additional seats in congress, state governors’ offices and state legislative seats. Strategically, and, I suspect, based on polls and expert analysis, they conclude that threatening or actually engaging in war gives Republican candidates an advantage over their Democratic competitors, and can pressure Democrats in congress in supporting legislation and oversight favored by Republicans - the “for the troops” tactic that has proved so successful since the Democrats gained majorities in both houses.

 

I sorely hope that the threat of war is all that is involved in this tactic. As I’ve mentioned in some other threads, I’m worried that many military advisors and chiefs may underestimate the Iranian military, and that if directly attacked, Iran might retaliate to the extent of its capabilities – that is, that the US might find itself at war with a much smaller, less powerful country that nonetheless would not suffer the near immediate collapse of its military command structure and central government, a country that might even enjoy the support of allies such a Syria, or even gain the support of countries not currently supportive or Iran, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while stirring up unrest and instability in countries currently supportive of the US, such as Turkey and Pakistan.

 

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to intimidate Iraq into negotiating with the US or US-friendly third parties, but don’t believe this to be the case, as the few people I know in the US state department believe that Iran is willing and eager to enjoy good diplomatic relations with the US now, but such communication is being refused by the US Executive.

 

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to increase support of US-proposed sanctions against Iran in the UN, but don’t believe this to be the case because the rhetoric appears to be decreasing support with countries such as Russia and China, who can veto acts UN acts and resolutions.

 

I’ve heard some suggest that it is a tactic to cause a major world war in order to cause the “Armageddon” some believe to be prophesized in the Bible. This strikes me as overly paranoid and credulous conspiracy theory. I sorely hope I’m right, and the conspiracy theory nuts wrong, about this reason.

[InfiniteNow]

A populace afraid is a populace controlled.

 

Too bad the powers that be are not painting those who pollute or contribute to global climate change as the evil Hitler. At least then we'd be engaged in a fight that was meaningful and more important to the survival of ourselves and our children and their children ad infinitum.

[CraigD]

Too bad the powers that be are not painting those who pollute or contribute to global climate change as the evil Hitler.

If you consider Al Gore one of the “powers that be”, “painting those who pollute” as evil isn’t far from what I’d describe him as doing for the past half decade. Personally, I give Gore a big :hyper: for his efforts, and think he should be given a prize :hihi:.

 

Some of the other powers that be painting polluters as evil Hitlers would, I think, be rather like Hitler painting himself as an evil Hitler.

 

Just 8 posts into the thread, We appear to have upheld Godwin's law with a vengeance. Actually, I suppose Cheney upheld it even before the thread was started.

[Buffy]

Just 8 posts into the thread, We appear to have upheld Godwin's law with a vengeance. Actually, I suppose Cheney upheld it even before the thread was started.

He actually has:

While the vice president’s 36-minute speech was characteristically somber in tone, he displayed a flash of humor in acknowledging that his imperious manner has earned him the nickname “Darth Vader” in some quarters. “I’ve been asked if that nickname bothers me, and the answer is, no,” he said. “After all, Darth Vader is one of the nicer things I’ve been called recently.”

 

I don't believe what I'm hearing... Obi-Wan was right... you've changed! :hyper:

Buffy

[Buffy]

If you're following the news, Vladimir Putin had a "love-fest" with Amadinejad last week--at least that sure seems to be how it was covered by the press here.

 

Its a wonder though that even in a country as antagonistic to those two countries as Israel, that their own press seems to see stuff ours--and unfortunately our current administration--refuse to see:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week in Tehran that he supports Iran's nuclear program. ... But Putin also refused to commit himself to a date when Russia will supply enriched uranium for the nuclear-powered electricity plant it is building in Iran's port city of Bushehr. Confusing? Definitely.

 

This confusion is exactly what allows Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's associates, who are experts at spin, to disseminate the claim - as they did over the weekend - that it was the prime minister who convinced Putin not to send Iran the first delivery of enriched uranium the reactor needs to be started....

 

The complexity characterizing Putin's foreign policy is causing the messages emerging from Moscow on Iran to sound ambiguous and confusing. Russia does not want its Shi'ite Muslim neighbor to have nuclear weapons, but it also sees Iran as an important market for the sale of arms and nuclear power plants for producing electricity. As far as Russia is concerned, Iran has been a target of diplomatic influence throughout history.

 

Above all, Russia is opposed to solving the crisis of the Iranian nuclear program by military means. It believes the Iranian leaders can still be convinced to postpone, at least for a while, the realization of their right to enrich uranium by themselves on a low level for civilian needs. That means Putin will not agree, at least not publicly, neither by silence nor by a wink, to an American military attack against Iran, not to mention an Israeli one.

 

Russia's message to Iran is: You have a right to enrich uranium for civilian needs, but you don't have to do it now. Russia supports you, but you are liable to lose our support if you are too stubborn.

 

For Russian diplomacy to be effective, it is accompanied by a double game and ambiguous statements. Russia joined the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, but for the time being opposes additional sanctions. All these steps were meant to preserve Russia's deterrent power against Iran.

 

Of course our right-wing-nuts are all atwitter these days about Putin's "hostility toward US interests." It would be nice if they could be a little bit more geo-political about it...kinda like their heroes, Nixon and Kissinger...

 

Henry's Madman Theory as executed by the Three Stooges, :hyper:

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

If you consider Al Gore one of the “powers that be”, “painting those who pollute” as evil isn’t far from what I’d describe him as doing for the past half decade. Personally, I give Gore a big :P for his efforts, and think he should be given a prize ;).

 

Hi Craig,

 

Don't forget about Mikhail Gorbachef. He should get a big thumbs up (and a nobel prize) too for his considerable efforts since 1992. And he's also starting a new group to promote democracy in Russia.

 

Global Green

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Does anyone believe in the Free Masons, I mean as a group that somehow controls the world?

 

My neighbor used to be a Free Mason. He said that he lost his soul and his faith after two decades with them. He CLAIMS that the Free Masons are literally building a pyramid of events, each one building up to one final event, some kind of an "End Game". He says use revelations as a road map on the decisions to make, while enjoying the prosperity the journey has to offer.

 

I don't want to say I believe in conspiracy theories, but I can't help but believe that these people are that blind to make such drastic and illogical decisions without some ulterior motive....

[Buffy]

Does anyone believe in the Free Masons, I mean as a group that somehow controls the world?

This is getting more than a bit off topic, so you might want to start a new thread on this.

 

My grandfather was a Mason, and my Dad went to a few meetings when he was younger but never joined. To most all of the people I know, its an alternative to the Chamber of Commerce as an excuse for the boys to get together on Thursday nights an throw back a few. The conspiracy theories about them seem laughable given the people I *know* who belong...

 

...but as I said, open a new thread for this topic...

 

I would never belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member, :P

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

I believe that this is about the 2008 US elections.

 

Craig, I think this cartoon is from the NY Times.

[CraigD]

Does anyone believe in the Free Masons, I mean as a group that somehow controls the world?

As an occult organization that controls the world, no. As a large, fairly well managed not for profit organization that provides a lot of beneficial services, particularly healthcare and pensions, yes. As a startlingly weird yet accessible semi-secret mystical society responsible for some eerily cool architecture, yes.

My neighbor used to be a Free Mason. He said that he lost his soul and his faith after two decades with them. He CLAIMS that the Free Masons are literally building a pyramid of events, each one building up to one final event, some kind of an "End Game".

I intuit from ISEM’s emphasis on the word “claims” that he has a reasonable suspicion that his neighbor is not of entirely sound mind. At first glance, I suspect the neighbor is either enjoying the attention he receives from peoples’ reactions to his claims, or at least mildly delusional.

 

Masonic initiation rituals are weird, and rooted in a profoundly supernatural worldview. Some masons do use magical techniques to make decisions (as do some non-Masons, myself and my family included). I know several Masons who seem to enjoy this quality and suffer no ill mental health effects from their participation in it. Though Masonic rituals are secret – you’re not supposed to tell people, in some cases even fellow lodge members, the details of them – every Mason I know denies that they are involved in any capacity in a vast, world-controlling conspiracy. Freemasonry is, according to those I consider most knowledgeable (such as Israel Regarde) about personal growth and wellbeing, and being a positive influence on your neighbors and local community. Dogmatically, it’s essentially as esoteric magical society, and like most such societies, do not share the apocalyptic beliefs common among fundamentalist Christians, but rather a belief in a long and positive future of humankind.

 

However, I can imagine that a person with a predisposition for delusional thinking might have their mental health badly upset by Masonic initiation. In my experience, Masons make a concerted, good-faith effort not to invite such people into their lodges, but I imagine are not always successful.

 

It’s also been my experience that the people with the most dramatic and alarming accounts of Masonic schemes of world domination are rarely actually Masons, and often have very poor understanding with Masonry’s history, current organization, or esoteric literature – in short, that they are mentally dysfunctional kooks claiming knowledge and experience they don’t truly possess.

I don't want to say I believe in conspiracy theories, but I can't help but believe that these people are that blind to make such drastic and illogical decisions without some ulterior motive....

It’s important, I think, to distinguish between secret societies. A remarkable number of US leaders and policy makers, including current US president G.W. Bush, are Bonesmen. Although Skull and Bones is “Masonic-inspired”, it’s not a Masonic lodge, nor affiliated with the Masons, but is essentially an single-lodge organization associated with Yale University. It’s known with some confidence that the 19th century founders of Skull and Bones claimed it to be a new lodge of the 18th Century Bavarian Illuminati, though proof of this claim is only circumstantial and conjectured. The Illuminati was not a Masonic lodge, either.

 

However, as Buffy suggests, discussion of secret societies and the conspiracy theories associated with them is best continued in a separate thread. I think I’ve gone on in that vein too long already – perhaps my walking distance proximity to the treasure trove of Masonic architecture that is Washington DC has so permeated me with such talk that I can’t help myself :phones:.