Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but the only answer you gave to my questions was that China would "sell" her dollar reserves. So someone else would buy them, and China would take the loss? How would that benefit her or hurt us? And if we were at war with China, as you predict, why would we care?
Yes, China would sell her Dollar reserves and her U.S. bonds, too, and therefore causing the Dollar to decline in value and therefor making it unattractive - this at a time when the U.S. Dollar has already reached a record-low point. Why would she sell them even in peace-time? Well, the U.S. Congress has threatened China with trade-sanctions and improved quality-control of Chinese products (which have received lots of criticism) and China is in response threatening to crash the U.S. Dollar. This is the "Nuclear Option".
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
Israeli proxy
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flieger
I'll agree, it's actually pretty far-fetched that Russia will get involved directly if U.S. finds itself in war with China. However, Russian-U.S. relations have been bad lately, almost as bad as they were during the Cold War years, and it's got pretty much to do with the U.S. plans of a missile-defense system in two Eastern European countries bordering Russia. The Russians seem to think it's directed at them, that is, intended to provide U.S. with nuclear primacy over Russia (that is, provide you with the ability to launch a first-strike) and as I wrote in another thread, there is indeed a paranoia in Russia, especially amongst Nationalist politicians in the State Duma, that U.S. intends to sometime in future attack Russia and steal her natural resources). They argue that this missile-defense system is a big step towards that goal, while U.S. insists it'll only be used to defend U.S. and its allies against missiles from rogue-nations such as Iran and North Korea. But I'll still fully agree with you that the Russians are now out to make money, not waste money on war, but with that said, I do believe, as you also stated, they would sell the Chinese advanced weaponry and military systems in case a war erupted...just like they sold the Iranians Tor-41s, despite U.S. pressure not to sell anything to her enemies. Unless the relations between U.S. and Russia go even much lower than they are now, I don't think there's a great risk for war between these two big nations.
Good point about the missile shield. I can understand Russia's apprehension at it. But I sure the higher ups in the Russian government know/remember that this missile defense program is much like the star wars program they had that scared the soviet union. all flash and not substance. It's just not going to really going to work. Heck those patriot missile U.S. had in the first gulf war really didn't hit anything either. Like most physicist have said before it like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Now is deployment of the missile shield a sign that America wants to possibly make a grab at Russia's vast natural resources. Well maybe. But if i was a betting man any smart military guy will look at history and know that Napoleon tried and both failed. At least in that direction. If you smart American invader you invade from the Aleutians islands or even Japan and invades Siberia (where a lot of those natural resources are untapped as of yet) . The logistics for the U.S. would be hard, but if pulled off successfully. I believe It going to take the Russians to get online to kick the U.S. out. I could be to late for them to do it by that time.
Quote:
You're probably right, U.S. security experts would know better than to promote the usage of nuclear arms on nations such as China and Russia, that can fight back and give U.S. a hard time. Iran is another matter - they can fight back in case U.S. sends in a few divisions through nations such as Turkey, Iraq or Azerbaijan, but I don't think they could do very much harm to U.S. at home. They could harm U.S. interests throughout the World, especially since they control a portion of the World's remaining oil-supply. It's been reported that U.S. officials have said they might to use nuclear arms to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities that are located underground, and then there's the President's well-known comment "All options are on the table" - "All" could also mean nuclear arms, or whatever his experts advice him of using, but he's probably primarily referring to the general military option. But then again, Putin has recently made some comments which were directed at West, in which he seriously warned against the use of force in the region of Middle East, Iran in particular. Some have interpreted his words as saying "If you attack Iran, you attack Russia". Who knows if he really did mean that and will be true to his words?
Actually an attack on Iran will happen. But it is not going to be the U.S. directly. It going to be from a proxy of the U.S. that has a legitimate concern on a nuclear Iran. That state would be Israel. Yes a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the U.S. But it absolutely intolerable to Israeli.
Good point about the missile shield. I can understand Russia's apprehension at it. But I sure the higher ups in the Russian government know/remember that this missile defense program is much like the star wars program they had that scared the soviet union. all flash and not substance. It's just not going to really going to work. Heck those patriot missile U.S. had in the first gulf war really didn't hit anything either. Like most physicist have said before it like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Now is deployment of the missile shield a sign that America wants to possibly make a grab at Russia's vast natural resources. Well maybe. But if i was a betting man any smart military guy will look at history and know that Napoleon tried and both failed. At least in that direction. If you smart American invader you invade from the Aleutians islands or even Japan and invades Siberia (where a lot of those natural resources are untapped as of yet) . The logistics for the U.S. would be hard, but if pulled off successfully. I believe It going to take the Russians to get online to kick the U.S. out. I could be to late for them to do it by that time.
Well written, I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater
Actually an attack on Iran will happen. But it is not going to be the U.S. directly. It going to be from a proxy of the U.S. that has a legitimate concern on a nuclear Iran. That state would be Israel. Yes a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the U.S. But it absolutely intolerable to Israeli.
Yes, agreed. Or it could also involve an attack on U.S. first, either in U.S.-controlled areas in Iraq or directly in U.S. at home, blamed on Iran, which would then justify a military response from Washington. This is at least the prediction made by former President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who's also a political scientist, by the way.
The video above has French(?) subtitles it seems, but it was the only video I could find (there used to be one fully English one on YouTube).
Israel has more to lose than U.S., though, eg. since they're geographically closer to Iran, and are therefore vulnerable to Iranian missiles and rockets. If Israel would indeed step up and attack Iran, it'd no doubt be with nuclear weapons (as anyone familiar with the Vanunu-case knows they have). Iran could actually give Israel a good fight, but not really if she only engages in "hit and run"-attacks from the air (as she got top-level American aircrafts).
And if they do engage an attack on Iran, it would, as Brzezinski says in his testimony, anger much of the Islamic World, and groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah might also attack Israel, giving her more than she bargained for. This is just pure and wild speculation of course, I doubt both (or perhaps any) of these two groups would attack simultaneously. But we don't know exactly how the Islamic World will react.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
nation of 60 million
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flieger
Well written, I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Yes, agreed. Or it could also involve an attack on U.S. first, either in U.S.-controlled areas in Iraq or directly in U.S. at home, blamed on Iran, which would then justify a military response from Washington. This is at least the prediction made by former President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who's also a political scientist, by the way.
The video above has French(?) subtitles it seems, but it was the only video I could find (there used to be one fully English one on YouTube).
Israel has more to lose than U.S., though, eg. since they're geographically closer to Iran, and are therefore vulnerable to Iranian missiles and rockets. If Israel would indeed step up and attack Iran, it'd no doubt be with nuclear weapons (as anyone familiar with the Vanunu-case knows they have). Iran could actually give Israel a good fight, but not really if she only engages in "hit and run"-attacks from the air (as she got top-level American aircrafts).
And if they do engage an attack on Iran, it would, as Brzezinski says in his testimony, anger much of the Islamic World, and groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah might also attack Israel, giving her more than she bargained for. This is just pure and wild speculation of course, I doubt both (or perhaps any) of these two groups would attack simultaneously. But we don't know exactly how the Islamic World will react.
Thanks for the video. I have seen Brzezinski put this scenario forward before. I believe it was on meet the press or real time with bill maher. And while it is possible that this scenario will unfold, especially with the Bush administration. It not very probable. The President has spent all of his political capital. He has no real way to move the majority American people to the war beat. Plus on top of this if America did go to war with Iran it would ruin the U.S. It would cost America more in blood and treasure then we could afford. I believe it was in this tread where I said that Iran is willing to basically send soldiers on suicide wave attack like they did in the Iran/Iraq war. And unless we use weapons of mass destruction ourselves (yeah that would go over well) there is no way we will stop a full mobilized nation of 60 million or more people.
With Israel. While I know Israeli would be in for a fight all around. I think Israel would still take that chance and attack it if they thought Iran was going to get nuclear weapon. I always look at Israel as a nation with it's back up against a wall and they have very little to lose. They will attack if there is a threat. Of course Ahmadinejad makes it a little easier when he says Israel needs to be wipe from the planet. Even if he is only saying these things to whip up some of his political base.
the Election of Ahmadinejad. I know that Ahmadinejad election is in part to due to his hardline stance against the U.S. and Israel. But I think a bigger part of his election is corruption in the government and serve poverty in southern Iran. These issues are the ones that are really important to the Iranian people. Basically most of the Iranian people are just like of the American people. There just trying to get by in this world and have there own domestic problems like America.
China is smart. I knew something like this was part of their plan.
when you have a dominant oppressive leader.. things happen much quicker...as opposed to a democracy where groups of people are constantly fighting for power.. eventually the democracy gets bled to death or so manipulated by money... that they become a sitting target to be jabbed in the guts... and they don't even see it coming...
we need to flush washington like a toilet.. and then establish basic common sense principles.. like.. lobbying and accepting anything on behalf of special interest groups should become treason.. and make it punishable by many years in a prison...
may be misquoted but from the former cia directors mouth in the parinoid acid test think tank days of geoge bush senniors gman days and friends that brought us vietnam (Cheny under gerald fords appointment who by the way pardoned nixon-Rumsfeld was aslo a player then ) and that pre emptive strike domino theroey the cia motto was
"never circumvent the sublime paridygm"
wow the parinoid delusional drug fueled mind set is back in power.george w. was a fly boy and we all now know that fighter pilots are given pep pills for long traing and combat flights. rush was also right in his drug fuel hate mongering too, right ? yeah way Right>
by the way my dad is a combat vet in vietnam 2 years of hell.and i am still ravaged daily by the effects of the boogie man that he became from it. kill em all let god sort them out!
china has a wood shortage limits-wood chopsticks are out lawed yet the price of oak at the sawmill in Tennesse is the same as pine because of all the chinese oak imported here .
yes they are trying to sink us.
in the buisness world-if i owned over 51 % of a companies stock like china owns over 50% of our debt-would i not be the president of the company? and have control over the govening board?
al gore did not invent the internet but he did help push it from a military spy tool into the private hands in say 1984.is big brother watching you in the form of end user aggreements.
yes i agree -click -to the world bank snooping into my credit card purchases from my online purchases which leave a cookie ladden trail which includes information about such absurd things like sexual orientation to my proffesion to how much money is in my bank account. (you will never truly know because of my synical distrust in this nation tht i have my cash store in a box ,but if i spend it i can have it confiscated because i have to show the king and his counting men where and how i got it because they know some poor slob like me could never have save that amount in my lifetime because they have it figuered so that i have it all spent week to week just to keep my head afloat.
ever find out your making too much money and get laid off- well there you go. accountants account for every thing.even the wage that you make.
The first thing that Greenspan did after he ritired was write a book and give speeches in japan to an international audience about the financial workings of the U.S.
is my accountant running arround telling my competition whats going on in my company ? Hang him for treason !
Thanks for the video. I have seen Brzezinski put this scenario forward before. I believe it was on meet the press or real time with bill maher. And while it is possible that this scenario will unfold, especially with the Bush administration. It not very probable. The President has spent all of his political capital. He has no real way to move the majority American people to the war beat. Plus on top of this if America did go to war with Iran it would ruin the U.S. It would cost America more in blood and treasure then we could afford. I believe it was in this tread where I said that Iran is willing to basically send soldiers on suicide wave attack like they did in the Iran/Iraq war. And unless we use weapons of mass destruction ourselves (yeah that would go over well) there is no way we will stop a full mobilized nation of 60 million or more people.
I agree with you. However, if a bloody terrorist attack, which leaves behind almost the same amount of victims as in the 9/11-attacks, in U.S. or Iraq does happen, and it gets blamed on Iran (or an Iranian "sponsored" terror-group), I'm not sure if that many Americans will protest the use of force to respond. Just like the American people almost cheered as U.S. went after Saddam Hussein some time after 9/11, while most people still suffered with open wounds. I do believe they also interconnected Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. The mass media is probably the one to blame for this misunderstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater
With Israel. While I know Israeli would be in for a fight all around. I think Israel would still take that chance and attack it if they thought Iran was going to get nuclear weapon. I always look at Israel as a nation with it's back up against a wall and they have very little to lose. They will attack if there is a threat. Of course Ahmadinejad makes it a little easier when he says Israel needs to be wipe from the planet. Even if he is only saying these things to whip up some of his political base.
the Election of Ahmadinejad. I know that Ahmadinejad election is in part to due to his hardline stance against the U.S. and Israel. But I think a bigger part of his election is corruption in the government and serve poverty in southern Iran. These issues are the ones that are really important to the Iranian people. Basically most of the Iranian people are just like of the American people. There just trying to get by in this world and have there own domestic problems like America.
Well, Israel has no solid proof of an existing nuclear-weapons program that'll justify the preemptive use of force against Iran. Nor has the U.S. We don't know very much so far, except what IAEA and the Iranians themselves reports. And to my knowledge, they've not reported the existence of any nuclear-weapons program. Not any intelligence service either. While it may, just may, be so that the Iranians do intend to in future acquire nuclear-weapons, I don't see very much proof to suggest that's what they're doing now.
While Iran is an Islamic state with laws, rules, cultural norms and values I do not endorse, I'm trying to be as objective as possible when it comes to my understanding of their intentions with their nuclear activity. And no country, whether it be U.S. or Israel, should attack or go to war with Iran over presumptions and misinformation (again), in fact, U.S. should be careful with the threats and sanctions until there are solid proof known to the International community of a nuclear-weapons program. This is a matter of credibility and Bush has none of that right now.
U.S. should instead turn their eyes to Islamic states such as Pakistan and India, which are hostile towards each other, and both have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic Extremists is the very last thing I would want to see, and this is not an impossibility in these countries, especially in Pakistan which has been unstable lately. But U.S. are turning a blind eye to all of this and instead issue threats towards Iran. Could it be because of the President of Iran's anti-Israeli remarks? We all know about the extremely close relationship between Israel and U.S.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Israeli proxy
