• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

WWIII?

I read somewhere that the Arab League Nations are largely non-shiite muslims and that they are kind of hoping the shiite's take a beating one way or another. There is still a lot of infighting in the muslim world and the Shiite's are by far the loudest and most obnoxious faction.
 
Doc said:
Good post PB and JD!!!!! :applause:

I agree with the majority of your post JD, but I can't agree that our military could be overrun with vastly superior forces. I see our vunerability as being spread to thin. It is impossible to calculate all possibilities to any major conflict. That was my point in starting this thread. The conflicts take on a life of their own, much like a forest fire. They can be near impossible to control or predict.

I probably worded that wrong - you are right, there really aren't any "vastly superior forces" in the region. If there was coordination between Iran and insurgent forces within Iraq however the US military might find itself in a situation where they could not supply themselves thru their normal supply routes from Kuwait - and the country as a whole (Iraq that is) might end up in control of Iraqi insurgent/Iranian forces while American forces held onto small geographic areas and had to be supplied by air.

The thing to bear in mind here is that the Islamic forces we are fighting are very patient. They do not think in the same terms we do - to them if things play out over the course of decades or even centuries that is ok. I read somewhere that the attention span of the American public for a war is about 3 years - something we have already exceeded. I personally don't think the Iranians are stupid - and, as I have stated before - I think there is a good chance they may already have nuclear weapons. There are a number of ways this could have happened:
- they could have developed it themselves and kept it very secret,
- I don't think all the nukes from the ex-Soviet Union were ever fully accounted for.
- North Korea will sell anything for the right price.
- it is well known that certain Pakistani nuclear scientists were selling nuclear bomb making knowledge

Take your pick from the above options - it is within the realm of possibility that Iran already has a nuke, or nukes - despite what the UN and our goverment has been telling us.

If you combine patience with the possesion of nuclear weapons you start to come up with some dreadful scenarios. If I was the Iranians I would try to get a good part of the US military in Iraq together in one geographic region - like under the pretense of repulsing an invasion, and then nuke us. Take out 1/2 of the US fighting military in Iraq and the country would be yours - the Iraqi military is not yet in the position to defend the country. This is just an idea - I am just trying to say that getting us involved over there was just not a good idea.
 
B_Skurka said:
And if Iran is really close to an atomic weapon, then what will nations like Barhain, Kuwait, Quatar, Saudia Arabia, Turkey and Russia do to respond since they are all in close proximity and while they may not be enemies of Iran they are not necessarily happy with Iran.

That's a really good question....I think perhaps Russia might be the sleeping giant in this situation. They might be the ones to open a serious can of whoop ass on Iran.
 
DaveNay said:
That's a really good question....I think perhaps Russia might be the sleeping giant in this situation. They might be the ones to open a serious can of whoop ass on Iran.
Or will the Arab League and the other nations just close their eyes while Israel unleases the suspected atomic weapons it has?

Is it possible that the Arabs are hoping that Isreal will smash the Hezbollah and then push on and destroy the Iran threat too?

Right now the US is unable to control Israel. But realistically since the Arab nations turned their back on Hezbollah, then there is no real diplomatic pressure on Israel . . . other than from the UN, which has proven to be ineffective in Lebanon and become more of a laughing point than a diplomatic asset. There are 2000 UN forces in Lebanon, they provide no deterrant to contain the Hezbollah.

Lebanon seems to have a totally ineffective military. Far weaker than I had believed. And totally incapable of containing Hezbollah. It is now apparent that the Hezbollah was inserted into Lebanon and supported there by the Syrians when the Syrians held the real power over Lebanon, and the whole thing was directed and funded by Iran.
 
B_Skurka said:
Or will the Arab League and the other nations just close their eyes while Israel unleases the suspected atomic weapons it has?

Does anyone know roughly what the yield is of any of the nukes that Israel has? I would assume they are "small" in comparison to US, or Soviet, but they would still have to be significantly more powerful than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
jdwilson44 said:
If I was the Iranians I would try to get a good part of the US military in Iraq together in one geographic region - like under the pretense of repulsing an invasion, and then nuke us. Take out 1/2 of the US fighting military in Iraq and the country would be yours
If they were stupid enough to use a nuke on our forces, they will need a new country as their existing one (the populated areas) will be turned to glass. Also, if we did retaliate, their government leaders will most likely die as well. Who does that leave in charge (and then what happens)?
 
bczoom said:
If they were stupid enough to use a nuke on our forces, they will need a new country as their existing one (the populated areas) will be turned to glass. Also, if we did retaliate, their government leaders will most likely die as well. Who does that leave in charge (and then what happens)?

Probably true - but in the end do we really "win" anything as a country if this happens? Let's say something like this really does happen - and Iran ends up getting majorly nuked by the US - the area is devastated - what do you think would happen next? The US would most likely move in to occupy the area - which we don't currently have enough troops for. So that means the draft - and the inevitable political upheaval here at home. So then we occupy the country - the Iranians are going to be rightly pissed off - and that occupying army is probably going to be stuck in the same situation the army in Iraq is in right now - fighting an insurgency. Not to mention the "Marshall Plan" that we will have to invoke to support the devastated Iranian economy. This all means mucho $$$ - if you think that the 350$ billion or so that we will have shortly spent on Iraq is a lot just wait to see what the calculator totals up if something happens in Iran.

Why do I keep going back to the money? Because in the end that is what it is about - that money comes directly out of your pocket and mine - and because of that fact we have to weigh the benefits of how that money is spent vs. the ways it could have been spent. Since our national debt is already ridiculously high adding more does not seem like such a great idea. Furthermore that debt is held by foreign countries - if we go and nuke Iran then those countries will react in ways that may well spell our doom in end anyway - there are many economists who think we are basically bankrupt as a country already:


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Is the USA Bankrupt?[/FONT]


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Bill Bonner[/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

by Bill Bonner
[/FONT]
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Is the United States of America, asks Laurence J. Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University, "at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Or, abandoning the Oxford English Dictionary for Ray Charles, are Americans "busted, broke...no bread...I mean like nuthin'?" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Answering his own question in the affirmative, Professor Kotlikoff explains: "This partial equilibrium analysis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We don't know what a partial equilibrium analysis is. But since it supports our general view, we ask no questions. Instead, we merely probe more deeply into the report for elaboration and amusement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Unless the United State moves quickly to fundamentally change and restrain its fiscal behavior," Kotlikoff continues, "bankruptcy will become a foregone conclusion."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This does not particularly help us. We have no doubt that the nation will be bankrupt. What caught our eye was the assertion that it is already broke. But that, it turns out, depends on what you mean by the word 'broke.'[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The proper way to consider a country's solvency," goes on the professor, "is to examine the life-time fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Among the strongest reasons is a study of the total net "fiscal gap" that the country faces. This is the present value of the difference between the government's future income and expenses – calculated using optimistic assumptions and not including any contingent liabilities, such as those that rise with the water level in New Orleans, or with insurgent activity in Iraq. No, these are the basics: interest payments, government operations, social security, and drug money. The figure, as negative and depressing as our Daily Reckonings occasionally are, is $65.9 trillion – or about 500% of the nation's GDP.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We have reported this number before, more in mischief than despair. Somehow, that gap has to be closed. Otherwise, the feds will have to stop sending out checks. But what do we care; the government already sends out too many checks to too many people, in our opinion. Then again, we don't depend on Social Security or have a safe full of T-bonds.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Besides, there is no chance that the gap will be closed, anyway. Kotlikoff has a sense of humor on this point. He notes that the government would have to cut discretionary expenses by 143%. Or, personal and corporate income taxes could be doubled. Just in case the reader missed the joke, he includes a chart that tells us that people at the upper end of the income scale already pay more than 50% of their incomes in taxes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now, a question: Which country do you think expanded its health care benefits most over the 32 year period – 1970 to 2002? Sweden, Japan or the United States? You probably can guess – America, the land of the free stuff. In fact, in the U.S. public health care benefits grew twice as fast as in Sweden during that period, which is a big part of the reason the United States is going broke.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]With a problem this big staring them in the face, you might think the custodians of the nation's financial health would be staying up late at night trying to come up with solutions. If you thought that, you would be an idiot. It is late in the cycle, dear reader. Patriots can no longer save the republic; it no longer exists. Instead, they spend their time trying to get what they can out of a decaying empire. Paul O'Neill was the first U.S. Treasury secretary to bother to calculate the "fiscal gap." George W. Bush fired him for it and proceeded to sign every spending bill – no matter how preposterous – to come his way. For its part, Congress continues to add to the fiscal gap every day it is in session, which leads Kotlikoff to conclude:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The most likely scenario is that the government will start printing money to pay its bills. This could lead to spiraling expectations of higher inflation, with the process eventuating in hyperinflation."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is not the only reason to buy gold, dear reader, but it is one of them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]• Meanwhile, as goes the U.S. government...so go its citizens and taxpayers. From Business Week July 12, 2006:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The U.S. Labor Dept.'s job report on July 7 showed that retailers had shed 7,000 jobs in June, after a loss of 71,000 jobs in the previous two months combined (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/9/06, "Behind The Retail Jobs Numbers").[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Strange Trend. It's unusual that retailers are trimming their workforces when the rest of the economy is growing. For years, retailers have been the source of significant job creation in the U.S. During the 1990s, department stores, groceries, and other retailers added 2.3 million jobs, or an average of almost 20,000 a month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Now, the concern is that retailers, who are positioned to detect the pulse of consumers more quickly than many other types of companies, are sensing trouble ahead. 'Something is screamingly wrong with consumers, and retailers are reacting,' says Richard Hastings, economic advisor to the Federation of Credit and Financial Professionals and a senior retail analyst at Bernard Sands, a retail credit rating firm."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What is screamingly wrong is the Great Dollar Paradox of the early 21st century is that Americans have too few dollars and foreigners have too many. Global prices increase – gold is back near $670. Gold may be getting ahead of itself, but it shows clearly what direction it wants to go. Oil is setting new records. Nickel has gone up 50% in the last month.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Meanwhile, domestic U.S. prices slump (see below).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This puts the United States in a bind. When it wants to go to war with someone – or offer free drugs to old people – it has to borrow the dollars from the people who have them: foreigners. If we remember the figure correctly, 75% of all new U.S. government borrowing this century has been financed from overseas. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Back at home, Americans are running out of money. The homebuilding stocks are falling apart. So, believe it or not, is that middle-class shopping mecca, Wal-Mart. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Rich Americans are still building houses in Greenwich and Palm Beach. They're still buying art at auction and adding to their positions in hedge funds. But the middle and lower classes are having a hard time making ends meet. They are forced to use their few dollars to buy the most expensive gasoline they ever saw. Those dollars get out their passports, breeze through the metal detectors (there is no metal in them), and leave home. They go overseas, take up residence in one of the oil or trinket-exporting nations, and get ready for their next move. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No wonder the home folks are feeling a little lonely. "Consumer morale dips," says a Reuters headline. Yes, it dips because people don't have enough dollars to consume with. Many of them haven't had a real pay increase since 1973. They need dollars to help make ends meet. And now, with rising energy prices and resetting mortgages, those footloose, fancy-free, globe-trotting dollars are sorely missed. Foreclosures are up 26% in the Dallas area. June retails sales were off nationwide. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]• You can still exchange your paper money for the real thing. The U.S. government is selling gold – in the form of a pure Buffalo coin. The price of the metal will probably correct before going much higher. But with civil war at hand in Iraq, regular old-fashioned war in Israel, brand new war on terrorism worldwide, a few buffalos and bankruptcy ahead for the world's only remaining superpower...a few buffalos might give you a comfortable feeling.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]• "Did you know that there have been big improvements in working with genes?" said Henry at the dinner table last night. "Now, they can implant genes from one species to another...and the gene will be fully expressed."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"What does that mean?" his father wondered. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Oh, I know," said Elizabeth, quick on the up-take, "they can take a gene from Eric Clapton and put it in a new variety of corn...so it will have a good ear for music. Or how about getting a gene from Warren Buffett and putting it in lettuce so the new strain will have a good head for figures?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Very funny, Mom," said Henry.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But what happens if you accidentally put a gene from lettuce into Warren Buffet?[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]July 18, 2006[/FONT][/FONT]​


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Bill Bonner[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [send him mail][/FONT] is the author, with Addison Wiggin, of Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of The 21st Century and Empire of Debt: The Rise Of An Epic Financial Crisis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Copyright © 2006 Bill Bonner[/FONT]​





Somehow further expanding the war does not seem like the brightest idea in the world if you are going to lose the country thru bankruptcy in the end anyway........​

But that's just my opinion.​
 
DaveNay said:
That's a really good question....I think perhaps Russia might be the sleeping giant in this situation. They might be the ones to open a serious can of whoop ass on Iran.

I believe that's who gave Iran the Nuclear Technology they have.. any big oil shipments to Russia from Iran?
 
kensfarm said:
I believe that's who gave Iran the Nuclear Technology they have.. any big oil shipments to Russia from Iran?
Iran & Russia have a long history of mutual trade.

----------

It was interesting to see Kofi Annan today speaking in front of the United Nations.

He very prominantly spoke to affirm the right of Israel to defend itself. He did criticize Israel for the level & ferocity of their response. He suggested that a diplomatic solution would be best and suggested a strongly beefed up U.N. Security Force guarding the border area.

Mr.Annan very clearly indicated that the fault lays squarely with Hezbollah.

What I wonder is if the U.N. Security Force is also going to patrol the border between Lebanon and Syria? Syria feeds the Hezbollah with arms by transporting them through Lebanon, so should the U.N. Security Forces also patrol the Syrian border to prevent the arming of the Hezbollah in hte first place? The Arab League and most nations (other than Iran & Syria) have condemmed the Hezbollah to isolation. Given that, and given that it is not a government or a deposed government, that leaves it in the position of being a free standing army without a country that happens to resides in Lebanon. An army without a nation should be isolated and disarmed.

Will the U.N. do that?
 
WWIII WILL, IN THE END, BE A RELIGIOUS WAR AS MOST OF THE WARS FROM OUR PAST HISTORY AS HUMAN BEINGS HAVE BEEN. THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS VIEWPOINT CAN BE VIEWED IN AN OLD CLASSIC MOVIE "GUNGA DIHN". IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT HISTORY HAS SHOWN US IS THAT ANY EXTREME GROUP USUALLY FAILS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SIMPLE NUMBERS DON'T WORK IN THIER FAVOR. THEY ARE ALWAYS A MINORITY IN THAT WAY. THOSE THAT ARE LEFT, THE MAJORITY, USUALLY BAND TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THEIR RESOURCES TO DEFEAT THEM. IF HISTORY DOES ANYTHING, IT USUALLY REPEATS ITSELF. LETS FACE IT, HUMAN BEING JUST DON'T LEARN!
 
Top