What WW3 might look like

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

Massive Quasars wrote: Yes, to a greater or lesser extent.
Like Clinton who bombed Iraq nearly every single day of his presidency? Or maybe like Bush 1 and the way he negotiated and end to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Or maybe you mean Reagan? Ooops no, Grenada, and Panama oh yeah and he armed Iraq rather than negotiate with Iran. Maybe you meant or Nixon or LBJ or Kennedy? The latter three have Vietnam and Cambodia etc. Nixon ans Suharto in Indonesia.

So who are you talking about specifically, Carter? Who else?
Kracis
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:42 pm

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Kracis »

well at least they didn't mention canada anywhere.
R00k
Posts: 15188
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by R00k »

Jesus christ on a broomstick. Congress has passed yet another inflammatory bill, that seems to have the possible effect of approving or condoning attacks on Iran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/

WTF is wrong with these people?
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36013
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by seremtan »

i see joe lieberman was a party to that. why am i not surprised?
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Nightshade »

IT'S BECAUSE THE DREIDEL PHONE RANG.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

R00k wrote:Jesus christ on a broomstick. Congress has passed yet another inflammatory bill, that seems to have the possible effect of approving or condoning attacks on Iran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/

WTF is wrong with these people?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
same old same old
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

oil really?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092607F.shtml
The primary evidence indicating that the Bush administration coveted Iraqi oil from the start comes from two diverse but impeccably reliable sources: Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary (2001-2003) under President George W. Bush; and Falah Al Jibury, a well-connected Iraqi-American oil consultant, who had acted as President Ronald Reagan's "back channel" to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88. The secondary evidence is from the material that can be found in such publications as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

According to O'Neill's memoirs, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, written by journalist Ron Suskind and published in 2004, the top item on the agenda of the National Security Council's first meeting after Bush entered the Oval Office was Iraq. That was January 30, 2001, more than seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The next National Security Council (NSC) meeting on February 1st was devoted exclusively to Iraq.

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq - the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)

Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.

Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries - France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others - their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)

According to high flying, oil insider Falah Al Jibury, the Bush administration began making plans for Iraq's oil industry "within weeks" of Bush taking office in January 2001. In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight program, which aired on March 17, 2005, he referred to his participation in secret meetings in California, Washington, and the Middle East, where, among other things, he interviewed possible successors to Saddam Hussein.

By January 2003, a plan for Iraqi oil crafted by the State Department and oil majors emerged under the guidance of Amy Myers Jaffe of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. It recommended maintaining the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company, whose origins dated back to 1961 - but open it up to foreign investment after an initial period in which U.S.-approved Iraqi managers would supervise the rehabilitation of the war-damaged oil infrastructure. The existence of this group would come to light in a report by the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2003.

Unknown to the architects of this scheme, according to the same BBC Newsnight report, the Pentagon's planners, apparently influenced by powerful neocons in and out of the administration, had devised their own super-secret plan. It involved the sale of all Iraqi oil fields to private companies with a view to increasing output well above the quota set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for Iraq in order to weaken, and then destroy OPEC.

On October 11, 2002 the New York Times reported that the Pentagon already had plans to occupy and control Iraq's oilfields. The next day the Economist described how Americans in the know had dubbed the waterway demarcating the southern borders of Iraq and Iran "Klondike on the Shatt al Arab," while Ahmed Chalabi, head of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress and a neocon favorite, had already delivered this message: "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil - if he gets to run the show."

On October 30, Oil and Gas International revealed that the Bush administration wanted a working group of 12 to 20 people to (a) recommend ways to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry "in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible U.S. military occupation government," (b) consider Iraq's continued membership of OPEC, and (c) consider whether to honor contracts Saddam Hussein had granted to non-American oil companies.

By late October 2002, columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times would later reveal, Halliburton, the energy services company previously headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, had prepared a confidential 500-page document on how to handle Iraq's oil industry after an invasion and occupation of Iraq. This was, commented Dowd, "a plan [Halliburton] wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan (and overbill the U.S.)." She also pointed out that a Times' request for a copy of the plan evinced a distinct lack of response from the Pentagon.
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36013
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by seremtan »

OYL VEY!
R00k
Posts: 15188
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by R00k »

Okay, so first a report is released detailing how our military has been perfectly organized to strike Iran, followed by a quote from Bush saying he has authorized our military to attack Iranians over unsupported claims about their involvement in Iraq:

R00k wrote: http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US ... _0828.html

Bush wrote: I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 828-2.html )
Next, we have some leaked details about a step-by-step strategy to sell a war with Iran to the American people:
R00k wrote:http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/post-l ... -with.html
Post-Labor Day Product Rollout: War with Iran


http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Scarboro ... _0827.html
Pat Buchanan: Democrats will fall in line with 'popular' war on Iran

Next, Congress votes on a bill that doesn't quite authorize war, but officially states that it is the sense of the Senate that we should use all available military means to "combat, contain and [stop] the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/


Now, as promised, we have Fox News seriously starting to ramp up the war drums with anti-Iranian rhetoric, devoting entire programs to analyzing how and why Iran will be bombed:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/fox ... king-iran/



Yep, things seem to be moving right along, and it all sounds eerily familiar.
User avatar
Captain
Posts: 20410
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:50 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Captain »

The war criminals are happily back at it. So much for impeachment.
busetibi
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2000 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by busetibi »

duck and cover :olo:
Gaza's Shirt:
Sayyid Iman Al-Sharif (aka Dr Fadl)
Part 1.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp? ... 3&id=16980
Part 2.
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=17003
hax103
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:04 pm

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by hax103 »

I read the resolution - its a *get re-elected* spam piece - it doesn't
do anything but posture and face saving. Kinda like if we voted on

"The Quake3World Senate Members resolve that
actions should be taken to ensure world peace"

who gives a shit?


R00k wrote:Jesus christ on a broomstick. Congress has passed yet another inflammatory bill, that seems to have the possible effect of approving or condoning attacks on Iran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/

WTF is wrong with these people?
-
old nik (q3w): hack103
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
Massive Quasars wrote: Yes, to a greater or lesser extent.
Like Clinton who bombed Iraq nearly every single day of his presidency? Or maybe like Bush 1 and the way he negotiated and end to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Or maybe you mean Reagan? Ooops no, Grenada, and Panama oh yeah and he armed Iraq rather than negotiate with Iran. Maybe you meant or Nixon or LBJ or Kennedy? The latter three have Vietnam and Cambodia etc. Nixon ans Suharto in Indonesia.

So who are you talking about specifically, Carter? Who else?
Still waiting for a detailed reply rather than meaningless drivel.
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by tnf »

Does anyone know if the homeland security changes since 9/11 have made it easier for the president to declare martial law (I believe they have) and if so, what the exact 'rules' governing this declaration are or where they are found?

Also. I don't see Canada in that article. Should we all move there? Puff can I stay with you?
Fender
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Fender »

tnf wrote:Does anyone know if the homeland security changes since 9/11 have made it easier for the president to declare martial law (I believe they have) and if so, what the exact 'rules' governing this declaration are or where they are found?
Yeah, I'll have to dig for it, but he can more or less declare for whatever reason he wants now.

edit: found it

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act basically overturned Posse Comitatus
...and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."
and another
...the revised Insurrection Act (10. USC 331-335) approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush last October, specifically says that the president can federalize the National Guard to ’suppress public disorder’ in the event of ‘national disorder, epidemic, other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident.’ That determination, the act states, is solely the president¹s to make. Congress is not involved.
All we really need is for another attack for Bush to simply declare and take over everything w/o the consent of... anyone. Except for God, you know, since he talks to GWB on a regular basis.
Last edited by Fender on Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
obsidian
Posts: 10970
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by obsidian »

That's the thing about changes in "security" laws since 9/11, it's all gray area rhetoric that can be interpreted one way or another. So when it comes to implement something like the Patriot Act or others, the President can pretty much "interpret" it any way he likes so any pre-existings rules are nonsensical. There are no rules anymore when you bend them any way you like.

Maybe I should go into the business of smuggling American illegal immigrants into Canada or something.
Tsakali_
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:46 pm

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Tsakali_ »

impeachment? lol they worked hard at getting that monkey on the hot seat
Tsakali_
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:46 pm

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Tsakali_ »

oops, speaking of which here are some great deals
http://www.handcellphone.com/
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by tnf »

why?
R00k
Posts: 15188
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by R00k »

hax103 wrote:I read the resolution - its a *get re-elected* spam piece - it doesn't
do anything but posture and face saving. Kinda like if we voted on

"The Quake3World Senate Members resolve that
actions should be taken to ensure world peace"

who gives a shit?


R00k wrote:Jesus christ on a broomstick. Congress has passed yet another inflammatory bill, that seems to have the possible effect of approving or condoning attacks on Iran.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/kyl-iran-fox/

WTF is wrong with these people?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washi ... ref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — The Bush administration will announce a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran on Thursday, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism, administration officials said Wednesday night.

The administration also plans to accuse the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, the officials said. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the decision to single out the Guard reflects increased frustration in the administration with the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Both designations will put into play unilateral sanctions intended to impede the Revolutionary Guard and those who do business with it. This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

The action against the Revolutionary Guard, first reported by The Washington Post, would set in motion a series of automatic sanctions that would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the Guard. In particular, the action would freeze any assets the Guard has in the United States, although it is unlikely that the Guard maintains much in the way of assets in American banks or other institutions.

The decision will be announced jointly on Thursday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration officials said. “This is going to be a broad and wide-ranging effort,” a senior administration official said. “We will be freezing assets, and there will be ripple effects of where we can go from there.”
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: What WW3 might look like

Post by Ryoki »

I wonder how Russia and China will respond to this.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
Post Reply