This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Iran & the Strait of Hormuz: Bad Bluff or Good Gamble?
Submitted by Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover
Iran & the Strait of Hormuz: Bad Bluff or Good Gamble?
Was Iran born to bluff, or is it really much closer to building a nuclear weapon than anyone really knows? Now that the Islamic Republic has made its intentions clear, one has to assume that it has given away a certain measure of strategic surprise. If it really wants to get the most that it could – militarily – from an attack on tankers moving through Hormuz, it should have never even raised it as a possibility. By discussing it, we figure Iran has given the US “notice” that it might not have had in the event of an attack from the blue. Weren’t the maneuvers in the Straits (by Iran) enough to raise the question without raising alert conditions from the West and from Israel?
Why would Iran make the threat to attack Hormuz when it seemingly cannot gain maximum military strategic advantage from it? Surely, it knows that the US and Saudi Arabia cannot allow the Strait of Hormuz to be closed, even briefly. Was it just testing market responses? Did it want to shake a couple European countries loose from the EU position on sanctions – or was it just looking for a few extra million from higher oil prices? Any one or more of those could be the case, and there is one more possibility. Iran may actually be closer to developing a nuclear weapon than we believe to be the case. If it did, it could make a closure of Hormuz ‘stick.’ In any event, Teheran seems more aggressive than really makes much sense.
With Iran producing 3.575 million bpd at last count, a $4.00/bbl jump in prices is worth $100 million over the course of a week. That is a lot of pistachios (Iran’s number two export). What has changed in the last few weeks is glaring: Iran is acting like the US well after the War of 1812, when it embraced the Monroe Doctrine (1823). Iran is saying basically the same thing – that any interference in the Petroleum Gulf is within Iran’s realm of interest, but clearly not in others’ realms of interest. It has told the US that any redeployment of naval units beyond the Straits of Hormuz will be taken as acts of war. This is as far-reaching a new doctrine as the Monroe Doctrine was in its day, or as the threat to close Hormuz in the event of European adoption of new sanctions. There is one set of glaring differences, though.
The US, in 1823, faced a Europe drained by 23 years of on-and-off fighting from the French Revolution through Waterloo (1815). England and France had been driven to the precipice of economic ruin by the wars – which could also be true of the US and EU now (by various other factors, wears among them). Bt, England and France were done looking for new Atlantic colonies and the US knew that it could proclaim the Monroe Doctrine without it being immediately tested. Iran may feel that it has the financial plight of the EU and US on its side, but it surely knows that the US will be bringing a carrier group to the PG next week or next month. It will not wait until next year. Iran knows this.
Iran also knows that the EU is on the brink of accepting new sanctions against Teheran. China has opposed new sanctions undertaken by the US as being “unilateral” sanctions adopted by Washington, but the unilateral aspect comes only in the timing. European countries are considering – and have been for two weeks – new sanctions against Teheran. The new sanctions force companies to choose between doing business with Teheran or Washington. As of this writing, EU governments seem to be moving nearer to halting oil purchases from Iran. Any new positions taken against Iranian banking will be announced on January 30th at a meeting of EU foreign ministers. Earlier today, Greece agreed to go along with the larger European Union on any decision to boycott Iranian oil. Everything from tighter banking conditions to a total embargo – with tightened banking conditions – is on the table. A number of new sanctions seem certain.
And, that brings us back to Iran’s new Doctrine, which we hesitate to further connect to US President Monroe. When he announced his doctrine, he was not entirely sure it would stick. But, he thought he had good odds. Iran’s leaders must certainly know that the odds are heavily stacked against them. Either new sanctions or the return of US carrier groups to the Petroleum Gulf – or both – are likely.
So, Iran already has a nuclear device already or it wants to drive up oil prices as it possibly increases its bid to lead the anti-American group in the region. That latter one is a non-starter because of the ethnic Persian versus Arab component. So, what can it reasonably expect to achieve? Is this all for domestic consumption? Does it seriously plan on starting a hot war, or will it take the extra money on higher oil prices and walk away.
One thing is certain. If Iran does ever have a nuclear weapon, it looks likely that it will use it. The new Gulf Exclusion Doctrine cannot be allowed to stand. It has to be tested. But, Iran really looks like it wants the doctrine to stand … at some point. It seems to need a nuclear deterrent, though, first, to make it stick. As far as we know, it has the cart before the horse on that, though … right now.
»
- 15020 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
call the smegma-breath Rumsfeld
Classic.
And there's elections in Iran in March... so let's mention that.
US and EU sanctions are toothless without Russian and Chinese participation. Iran already uses Russia as a proxy for aquiring advanced tech from Western corporations, and China for everything else.
I was just reading that the US has a tenative deal with the EU to stop buying Iranian oil as part the latest sanctions against Iran.
At this point I started to laugh my ass off, all this does is makes Chinas oil imports cheaper and riser the price for the rest of the world.
So now China can start dumping US FRN and treasuries to Iran as payment for oil and in turn Iran can start dumping these onto the market.
Good news for the US dollar don't you think?
If I were Iran I'd be counterfeiting US dollars like it's going out of style. Difficult to do as an individual, or even as a small criminal outfit, but for a nation state? Shouldn't be too hard.
They could make them with a single, tiny flaw that makes them identifiable, and quietly flood the Middle East, Africa, and Asia with them... maybe use them to buy gold hand over fist. Then, after a few months, and they've circulated worldwide, announce (anonymously, of course) how to identify the fakes.
Nothing like destroying an enemy's currency to fuck it up.... they might have a job keeping up with Ben, admittedly.
Not a good idea to do that with your ally China holding a trillion of those notes. But overall, it's a good idea... if China participates (clandestinely of course). It would destroy Japan and the US...
If China prepares for such a scenario, and they do it, China has a win/win.
It's what I would do if I were in a global currency war.
It's a win for China for sure, and for Iran.
But maybe that's what's happening anyway it's just not in the media.
Oil for gold, treasuries for gold dosn't make too much difference I would think.
The US goes to war to defend the currency, I think that is what it all boild down to.
Kadafi was creating a gold backed currency look what happned to him.
Sadam stopped taking US $ for oil look what happned to him.
I think history is littered with examples.
The Empire will defend it's place as rhe world reserve currency.
Good reading.
http://www.pillowrock.com/ronnie/romanarmy.htm
Great idea. What if *WE* were to do that with *their* sad little currency? Would we be lauded as strategic geniuses? Or bashed as imperialistic warmonger puppets of our Evil Zionist Masters? Stuxnet seems to have fucked them up pretty well....no boots on the ground, no US troops killed. Iran's groupies here are always yapping about asymmetrical warfare, but that works both ways. So why not expand this notion?
And if not us, why not Britain? Last I checked, their embassy WAS stormed and violated by "spontaneous" "passionate" Iranian "students" certainly not acting under orders or state control in one of the world's most authoritarian nations.....what's technically known as "an act of war". Odd we don't see/read much about that on the news anymore, ain't it? Wonder why.....
This article is pure propaganda and an embarracement to ZH.
At what point did they threaten to attack oil tankers? They have threatened to close the strait which is not the same thing. You may feel they have threatened US naval vessels , again not the same thing as threatening civillian oil tankers.
Their posturing is a defensive response.
Umm... 3 or 4 nations have naval vessels parked just outside their front door, recently they have experienced assassinations of scientists, two suspicious explosions within military missile bases, drone fly bys as well as the up coming sanctions. They are doing a good job of turning the other cheek.
No , like most sovereign nations they want to determine their own destiny without outside interference.
Why? who wrote this garbage.
Thank God for the sense of justice that you and men such as yourself carry in your breasts. For in the approaching crisis of necessity facing America and the world, you and they will be the men that count.
Why? who wrote this garbage.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
A US citizen.
Weren’t the maneuvers in the Straits (by Iran) enough to raise the question without raising alert conditions from the West and from Israel? – Peter Beutel
No! The increase in tensions is clearly caused by the United States and its Zionist masters. For many months the pro-Israel foreign policy of the United States has been moving toward war, hoping that the Iranians would begin to try to protect themselves.
The question now is not whether Iran has an operable nuclear weapon; of course is doesn’t. There’s been no testing and the latest inspections have no solid evidence that the nuclear program is anything but peaceful
In discussing the proposition that Iran has lost its “surprise” by its statements and action makes one wonder from what vantage point this author comes. One can almost sense the wish that Iran would attack an encroaching U.S. naval vessel.
But would it matter, whether they attacked or not, whether they had a weapon or not? It’s a sadistic game of cat and mouse. It’s a matter of damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The reason is greed and inhumanity toward man - oil and Israeli dominance over the Middle East.
Law and order and peace and all the structure of civilization rest on the sense of justice that those who rule this superpower no longer possess.
Well spotted JR!
If Iran had wanted a nuke, they could have had one already over a decade ago... the simple fact is that they didn't go for it. CNNC offered them the "full package", including training scientists, providing material support and transferring technology... which is the same thing they did for Pakistan years back. Iran only wanted nuclear power and that was it, they told off CNNC because they didn't want any part of it.
North Korea originally was totally all for just simple nuclear power. They were working with old technology which also produces useful nuclear materials. They agreed to cease activity in return for oil from the US and a light water reactor from the US. Guess what happened? The US gave them jack shit and went back to sabre rattling. No shit they picked that right back up and built a bomb.
So, what have we learned here? The US creates these problems all on their own. A country that never had any desire to build a bomb, ends up building one because they are being accused of it anyways. Either stop their legit progress simply because a bunch of small-dicked pigs are screaming at them, or go ahead and build the thing that said small-dicked pigs are afraid of them building. The choice is really damned obvious and simple.
That being said, Iran sure as hell better be working on a bomb, because if they are not they are going to have their country destroyed on the pretense of them working on a bomb. While if they actually build a bomb, they will be left the hell alone. Great shit eh?
Stop talking sense, please.
The Iranians already have nukes, small ones for sure, but they have nukes.
And if the jew supremacists nuke them, they also have chemical and bio weapons that they won't hesitate to use. If Iran gets nuked, what do they have to lose?
I'm wondering who gets to be on the good ship lollipop next time it crosses through Hormuz. Should be an interesting journey.
This article was absolute bullshit, I almost threw my laptop across the room after reading it. I don't understand why ZH the bastion of truth has to put this drivel up, it must be to fill space. The message put forward by the Tylers is consistent yet it is contradicted sometimes by its guest posts, the drivel above being a classic example.
On the Iran topic what dim witted, brain dead pond scum actually believes that Iran is a threat to anyone?! Israel are at it again, getting the zionist congress to do thier dirty work.
did it get you thinking?
I am all for different points of view , but from a 6 year old , no , it doesn't get one thinking about anything of import.
EZYJET PILOT, wondering about the purpose of this article on ZH:
Yes, indeed it is bullshit. Be glad that you are awake and aware enough to see it for what it is.
My belief is that articles such as this are placed on ZH in order to illustrate the propaganda message being spread by TPTB. You and I both know that the article is utter garbage; it cannot even be redeemed by composting. It is also clear that the author is either a shill or a dupe. However, keep in mind that more than a few "decision makers" and "stakeholders" will gladly drink this kool-aid, and it is useful for those of us who are awake to know the flavor du jour being pushed. It looks like today's propaganda is a ridiculous fruity flavor known as "Gulf Doctrine".
That would be those people who regard thinking as an unpleasant activity, are bewildered by ideas that can't be expressed as bumper stickers, and beg for the comfort of someone telling them what to believe. Regrettably, such people constitute a significant portion of the American electorate.
This article was absolute bullshit, I almost threw my laptop across the room after reading it.
................................................
That would be bullish.
US citizenism is driven by consumption.
Laptop across the room, laptop broken, laptop broken, new laptop to be purchased, new laptop to be purchased, more consumption etc...
Consumption, consumption, consumption...
US world order.
At least Israel will be safe, at the expense of more American servicemen.
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250249
The problem is Iran ... Iran, not Israel, Zionists or Jews in general. Try to concentrate little anti-semites.
hey Danepol
1st this blog is not kosher So if you want to get it blessed brfore you start reading , do so now
2end "The problem is Iran ... Iran, not Israel, Zionists or Jews in general."
wtf ?? quit packing the hookah with your own belly button lint
are you just trying to do some jewish damage control ? They are the problem
it has been the problem , wake the fuck up
The people, who are the guardians of America’s sovereignty and have the ultimate authority over all elected representatives of that authority, need heed the warnings of Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) regarding the naked abuse of that power around the world.
Says Raimondo in Meanwhile, in the Persian Gulf...: “ [W]e are already at war with Iran: the economic sanctions we’ve imposed are in themselves acts of war, and the latest version – sanctions on banks that do business with Iran – are already having their effect: a drop in the value of Iranian currency.
“It is rank hypocrisy for the US to point to the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz when Washington is seeking to block commerce traversing the Strait by imposing sanctions on Iranian oil. The Iranians know very well that the sanctions cannot be enforced without a military blockade – and that is the next logical step on the road to war.” …
What made the Iowa circus a Circus Macabre, says Raimondo, is that ii took place “in the shadow of a looming catastrophe: the advent of World War III, and the onset of a second Great Depression.”
Says Raimondo: “We are at a particularly dangerous juncture. War with Iran would destroy, with one stroke, the spotty economic ‘recovery’ and plunge world markets into chaos. Yet this grim prospect – which was the official rationale for the biggest theft bailout in history – doesn’t deter our warmongers in the least. The economic case against war with Iran should be enough to convince any rational person that peaceful engagement with Tehran is the only solution.
“The problem is that economics takes a back seat to politics: that is what’s driving us into an open conflict with Iran. While the IAEA report contains no new information about Iran’s alleged nuclear arms program, and while our own intelligence assessment says they stopped all work on nukes in 2003 [.pdf], war serves the political interests of several major factions within the US elite. First and foremost is the powerful Israel lobby, which exerts a major influence on both political parties: they long ago targeted Iran for destruction, echoing the laughable assertions of Israeli officials that Iran represents an ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish state’s very existence. Secondly, the neoconservative faction (founded by warmonger Norman Podhoretz) of the GOP, which has glommed onto the Romney campaign, and has its voice in Fox News and the Murdoch media empire: that crowd welcomes any and all wars as an expression of ‘national greatness.’ Thirdly, the powerful pro-Israel faction of the Democratic party, which wields a lot of influence among the top donors: centered in Hillary’s State Department, this powerful pressure group has kept the US from pursuing a more evenhanded policy in the Middle East. “
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/03/meanwhile-in-the-persian-gulf/
US citizen nature includes bully type.
Bullies never aggress, they are always victims.
Bullies withdraw their acts of agression from the picture and only see the retaliation, which is no longer retaliation when you withdraw the initial aggression.
US citizens nature is eternal. They are duplicitous andbullies at heart.
Difficult to take seriously bellicose statements from that part of the world. I have no doubt they all masturbate furiously at night with dreams of humiliating the Great Satan, and tiny Israel. Must be a bitch to know that a billion of your followers can't take out or even seriously annoy a nation of..what....8 million or so. And so, in the tawdry tradition of that part of the world, ("A river of blood will flow before you take that taxi instead of me, dog!!"), they talk gobs of ridiculous shit. "Mother of all Battles". The soaring hallucinatory oratory of Baghdad Bob. Iranian war games/exercises that later routinely prove to be faked or photoshopped.
Yeah, I suppose they *could* have an ace or 2 up their sleeves - but I can't help but remember the runup to Gulf War 1. Again & again, we heard from the Ph.D's, and the plugged-in defense 'consultants', how tough this would be: Iraq had, after all, the "battle-hardened 4th largest army in the world!". Again & again, we heard stories of tens of thousands of body bags being purchased for presumed US casualties. In the end....not so much. Not quite as difficult as The Bright Boys at State said it would be.
My guess is they're just buying options on crude, and then yapping about war, or yapping about peace, whichever suits that month's oil manipulation strategy. Ok, sure, they hate Isreal. But they love money even more, and they can do maths. Probability of destroying the evil zionists without being destroyed in turn: probably less than 3%. Probability of scoring serious bank by militarily manipulating the crude markets: 99% or better. "First Principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask, what is it in itself? What is its nature? (...) [A: maintain & expand their power over their fiefdom....er, "country".] "What is the first and principle thing he does?" [A: same.] (...) "He/they *covet*. [Mo' Money, Mo' Powwuh, the Respect/"face"-of-the-gangster-style that is all-important in the Islamic & Asian world.] That is his/their nature." Dr. Lecter: geopolitical savant. Like Hillary, only smarter & more effective; a tad more trustworthy.
'
Those body bags were not for State Dept employees, your bias is clear hawk, now all that's left is are you the chicken variety.
From your postings I would expect the feathers to be of a most foul type.
*Super* good argument there, Sunshine! now Blow me. That foul enough for ya?
I watch all these debates and listen to all this talk about attacking Iran from the likes of Red Rumney, Insantorum and Fig Newton. If I could interview them and ask just one question It would be this... Ok so you want to attack Iran, can you please tell me just how you plan to deal with Russia and China which have both warned the US that they would support Iran in the event of an attack? Then I would just sit back and watch them roast themselves!!!
Exactly! The myopic view is that this is about Iran. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT RUSSIA AND CHINA!
Full Spectrum Dominance by US/NATO, and First Strike Preeminance.
I feel sick...I am so angry....unintended consequences abound...or ARE they UNINTENDED?
The US western forces and bankers/oil cartels are desperate for world hegemony. Truly desperate.
I am so sick of those posting here that have this moronic and cavalier about nuking this or that. Do they not realize what they are saying?
Humanity is lost. Evil abounds. Mind-controlled masses is what we have. NO ONE even WANTS to know the truth and to stand up for sanity, morality, or peace.
Signed: A FORMER Mind-Controlled Neocon Flag-waving Zombie
the worst nightmare that is probably real is if iranian sleep agents have aquired russian nuclear suitcases and planted them inside US
Riiiiiiight.
Isreali suitcase nukes are far more likely. Probably been here for decades. It's the first real briefing for a new POTUS. 'Oh...OH....OK.'
RE: “Why would Iran make the threat to attack Hormuz when it seemingly cannot gain maximum military strategic advantage from it?”
Question:
If Iran picked up information that Israel was about to make an attack, and Iran started conducting military exercises in the Gulf that attracted world attention and positioned themselves to counter attack, and create havoc in the Gulf, would this not serve as a deterrent to such an attack?
bingo, you attack us, we close the straight with mines, and surface to surface missiles. Nothing like 6 oil tankers sitting on the bottom clogging up marine chanels and mines floating loose in the waters to cause some $250.00 oil and more pain for the US and EUR than any Iranian nuke
The biggest threat that the Iranian navy poses is with its fast boat force - fast moving speedboats with a couple of rockets a piece, that can outrun helo's, are too small for fighters to effectively engage, and can outrun pretty much all frigates/destroyers navies traditionally employ... The western naval forces are built around fighting russian/chinese vessels, with big guns, submarine warfare etc.
Any traditional naval vessel is boned if 15-20 fast boats attack it, you simply can't destroy them all before they start launching... and in a 30 mile stretch of water, they are horrendously effective.
Just my two cents, but when i was in the military, FB's were the biggest threat to naval forces... thats why somali pirates use them and drug runners...
"Fast-moving speedboats can outrun helos"?? Since when? A quick Google search shows that most if not all of the USN helo stable will do at least 50 MPH better than the most badass speedboat I could find. Should the helos somehow start to fall behind, I kinda doubt the SB's will be able to outrun missiles, torpedos, or heavy machine-gun fire.
In a one helo vs one speedboat - yes... but there are more speedboats than helos, most have very small if non existent radar signatures, making them very difficult to track/lock with missiles....Most helo's employed by naval forces can only track these vessels visually, and tracking multiple vessels at once just increases this difficulty.
Most surface to surface, or ASM's need something bigger than a fast boat in order to aquire lock and tracking - western forces are playing catch up since the end of the cold war, as most 'threat' nations now use fast boats as they're cheaper to buy, maintain and most of these nations only engage enemies within their local coastal waters, not international battles in open water... Subs struggle to track fast boats - they're designed as strike weapons to launch attacks against frigate and larger vessels, some anti mine operations and then ICBM and tomahawk strikes... Also the waters around the straits are very shallow (50m) limiting submarine manouveres severely...
The threat comes from whats on the fast boat, not the fast boat - as they can get close enough to launch a missile, which is well outside the range of gunfire.
Fast boat warfare is basically like Blitzkrieg warfare that the nazis employed against the lumbering heavy tanks in ww2 - what good is a ship armed to the teeth if you can just zig-zag toward it faster than it can track you, pop off an anti ship missile then zig-zag away...
Old report, but still worth a read to see what i'm talking about... http://www.metransparent.com/IMG/pdf/PolicyFocus87.pdf
OK, I'll bite. Am a military brat - not a USN brat - but I seem to have this notion that most if not all reasonably-heavily armed USN vessels have lots & lots of guns aboard. Oh, not the radar-controlled 16-inchers that seem to be overrated anyway. (see: Iwo Jima & Okinawa) No, I mean the 20mm (?) minigun cannon that pops off....oh....100 or so rounds per *second*. Common sense would seem to indicate that such weapons shouldn't need much in the way of radar signatures to be effective: just shoot & spray. Walk the fire into the targets.
Just a guess, but since the Cole incident, I'll *bet* the USN doesn't let ANY unknown boat/boats get within a certain range before warning and then opening up on it/them. Especially speedboats in the Straits or the Gulf. And helos up will alert them early, even if they look like they're just dawdling around. This is not to say the bad guys can't get off a lucky missile shot or 2.....but I know who I'd bet on to cover the spread.
vato poco, while playing know-it-all, said:
Riiiiight, you're going to shoot and spray at a dozen small, fast boats all launching anti-ship missiles at you from fifteen miles away.
I think you may be confused about the actors playing the parts of good guy and bad guy in this little drama. Nevertheless, you need to bear in mind that the large naval ships, when on the defense, have to be 100% effective. The flotilla of small boats only needs a success ratio of 10% to wreak utter havoc.
I recommend you not travel to Las Vegas with more money than you can afford to lose.
A most fitting handle there, Stooge. So if your little formula is right, then how come there hasn't been a 10% success rate on attacks on USN ships since the Cole? Or even - you know - *1* attack? There ARE lots of shoulder-mounted missiles floating around out there, aren't there? See, the difference between me and you is I don't "pretend to be a know-it-all", I just extrapolate using common sense. If the bad guys are 15 miles away, they're going to need a radar lock. Active radar, right? That's going to get those (not so slow) helos attention, and give *them* a radar lock, too. Also, genius, pray tell the class how a tough guy (like you!) in a speedboat is going to get a clear shot or a lock on at a USN vessel in a crowded harbor? (which is how a boat was allowed to get close to the Cole)
Can't do it, can they. They'd have to go out on the open sea - where they'd be infinitely more vulnerable to radar and helo observation. I suspect you're a military groupie, so please, help a brother out here: How they goan' do it? Lastly: I **live** in Vegas, dipshit. It's morons like you who blow into town with 'sophisticated' counting or Martingale or dice control (LOL) systems that you read about on the internet & sent away for the DVD that help keep our state income tax....nonexistent. (I especially like the part where y'all accidentally stumble into a career lucky day and then give it all back, bit by bit, on the same trip - and end up begging for comped bacon and eggs at the coffee shop.) What do YOU pay? You sound like you're from Boston or maybe Cali....what are we talking here? 9%? 11%? More?
Awwww, did I hit a nerve?
Nobody mentioned shoulder-fired missiles.
Your extrapolations and common sense appear to be mutually exclusive.
Yo, bro! How dey goan' do it? I'm glad U axed, mang! Git yo wack azz over to da google an' throw down wit dis:
Thondar Fast Attack Missile Boat
Noor anti-ship missile
C-802
If your keyboard is too encrusted with spittle to type the above terms, you can simply copy and paste.
Sorry, I've never been there. I suppose I should visit before it becomes a ghost town, done in by the end of cheap oil and/or the dropping water level of Lake Mead. Do the local gambling establishments give odds on which one kills Vegas first?
If one was part of the military, it is considered treasonous to reveal such information, even if it appears simple and logical. Actions from both sides is regrettable, but one should not forget you are still a citizen of your respective country, and sensitive information should be safeguarded. Unless you have been granted permission to reveal that information of course...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
This is an acutal training video from WWII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGRBLr3WAC8
We should nuke the fucking shit out of Iran. We still owe the cocksuckers for taking our hostages when the chickenshit Jimmy Carter was President.
We should also nuke Pakistan for hiding Bin Laden, and Syria for undermining the Iraq war. We should nuke Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Libya for fomenting terrorism. Same goes for Malaysia, the Phillippines, Thailand and Egypt. North Korea should be nuked because of the insolent actions of the late smurf Kim Jong Ill.
Israel should be nuked because they are ALWAYS at the center of the problems in the Middle East. Russia should be nuked because they are dishonest cretinous shit-eaters. France should be nuked because they are despicable cowards. Japan should be nuked as a reminder that we haven't forgotten about Pearl Harbor, not that there remains a grudge. Germany should be nuked because Hitler was an asshole. We should leave China the fuck alone.
Central America should be nuked because of the drug trade. Illegal trafficking would go down by 99% if we took out Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Columbia.
Mexico should be nuked because their cocksucking leaders encourage illegal immigration to this country. Illegals come over here and rape, murder, sell drugs, fuck, steal, and worse than anything else---absolutely crucify the English language.
No more Mexico, no more illegals. And, best of all, I'd never have to hear "Press one for English." again.
You missed the part where america put they Ayotollah in power to secure oil from the region... by causing the overthrow of an Iranian leader that opposed selling to western nations...
should nuke canada for giving us joni mitchelle
lol
And Seattle. $6 coffee, Kurt Cobain, Courtney Love, Grunge, Microsoft.......the world will thank us.
richard in norway
LOL.. i would agree ..BUt Canada also gave us RUSH
so no nukes
And Lorne Greene.
And William Shatner.
John Candy
Smokey1, you are talking about expending a good portion of all nukes of this world! They aren't cheap!
and don't forget, Japan already got some tough nuclear love
To your encirclement problem: there is a cheap solution, one bullet ;-)
That chicken shit jimmy carter was president becaue if he hadn't been the country would have torn itself limb from fucking limb. The government had zero influence on it's citizens behavior. Was publishing pentagon papers and absofuckinglutely was not going to tolerate a war monger.
Palestinians are Semites, The Khazarian jews are fake jews they are the war mongering bastards trying to take America to war. Iran nor Iraq was the problem. The problem was and is now the Khazar Rothschild satanic fake jew land, once commonly called for centuries Palaestina by the Romans and laterly up until 1948, Palestine. Long live Palestine, go to hell all the fake jews.
A history lesson for all the zionists, notice zionist with a small z.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
Prof.Shlomo Sand - the most crucial addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria. Why is the idea of the Khazar origins so threatening? "It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land."
More on Prof. Shlomo from the israeli newspaper Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/general/shattering-a-national-mythology-1.242015
Some more.
Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria – a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.
Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.
“At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe – three million Jews in Poland alone,” he says. “The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward.”
http://notmytribe.com/2008/sholomo-sand-and-shattering-a-national-mythology-85063.html
The Palestinians are Semites. Most, the majority of Jews are not. So, who is the anti-Semite? Ans. All you jewish supremamcists can now look in the mirror and point at the reflection you see.
@ZH: I spend time on this site for the quality, relevance and timliness of its content. Recently, there seems to be an increase in the number of poorly-vetted "Guest Posters" polluting your bandwidth....this is messing with my chi.
Are you retarded? Poorly vetted? he is globally renown for his analysis, objectivity, and the ability to game out middle east situations with no dog in the fight ofhis own.
Peter Beutel has 35 years experience and knows more about oil fundamentals and middle east issues than anyone bar none. He coined the word PETROPOLITICS. This is a blog story he wrote for his site, a minor, well balanced piece on what might be happening. if you need him to have a raging opinion he certainly can. But that doesnt help the 300 clients he has that go to him for production hedging advice. Nor does it help to advertise his recommendations to the hedge funds he advises.
in a recent conversation he told me " navy doesn't matter i nthe straits. it is surrounded on 3 sides by Iran. it will be gun placements that make the first atttack, and they'll get destroyed from miles away by our cruisers. Iran knows this, so why are they escalating unless they have something . Perhaps they have just gone brain dead." but he doesnt write that shit. He is a professional analyst and this is a minor document. He writes an additiional 12 pages a day on fundamentals and technicals for his clients. its $250 a month adn people pay for it. this aint Doug KAss or Dennis Gartman. Beutel is the real deal, not some marketer shill.
We're running out of wars so of course we will create a new "threat". This is a sad social commentary on how Eisenhowers bugaboo (M-I-C), continues to strengthen its death grip on US politics and economics. Does any one really believe Iran would use nukes? I think the only nation tht has a first strike policy is---us???
And to anyone who wants war with Iran : shut the fuck up or sign up for the military.
I'm sick of these chickenshits warmongering all day.
The chicken reference brings to mind Ron Paul’s principled stand against undeclared and immoral wars, reminding us of Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy.
Responding to Gingrich's assertion that he would be a "dangerous" candidate, Paul said “that Gingrich was a ‘chickenhawk’ for voting to send American troops into war while never having served in the military himself." More from CNN :
"You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to serve us in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that and got deferments and didn't even go," Paul said. "Right now he sends the young kids over there and the young people come back and the ones in the military right now, they overwhelmingly support my campaign."
Paul pointed to the number of veterans who are supporting his bid for the GOP nomination, citing their endorsement for his platform of limited American involvement overseas
"We get twice as much support from the active military personnel than all the other candidates put together," Paul said. "So Newt Gingrich has no business talking about danger because he is putting other people in danger. Some people call that kind of a program a 'chickenhawk' and I think he falls into that category."
the Iranians are not idiots. This is NOT about oil, or Israel, or zionists-jihadistas, or religion, or EU bankstas. It is about PISTACHIOS!!! Iran TRYING TO DOMINATE THE WORLD PISTACHIO MARKET, and then where will we be? A Ben and Jerry's pistach double scoop will be 12 bucks. who can afford that? Bars will close when customers don't get a bowl of free pistachios. It will be the end of civilization as we know it. We're doomed.
So go stock up at the 7-11 before the prices spike.
I hardly ever find unsalted pistachios anymore -- it's a conspirazy I tells ya...
Conclusion: Everyone's nutz!
Fall back into orbit and nuke them from space. It's the only way to really be sure.
Sadly, Sam, you've got the picture, the ultimate pre-emptive strike!!! Let’s quit guessing whether they have a nuke or not and just kill everybody- that’s the way to be sure they don’t use any weapon, just kill them all. America, doing hell’s work!
And there are bloggers in the War Party who've actually advocated this, on ZH.
Tyler,
everything in this world has simple explanation
Libya has been attacked because Gaddafi try to close Libya’s bank accounts in France’s and EU banks
The issue with Iran is the same – they want to change the status USD has as the only currency accepted by the Arab’s oil producers
Israel’s religious fanatics and the nucks Iran might produce are just bla-bla stuff for the washed American brains
Tyler,
everything in this world has simple explanation
Libya has been attacked because Gaddafi try to close Libya’s bank accounts in France’s and EU banks
The issue with Iran is the same – they want to change the status USD has as the only currency accepted by the Arab’s oil producers
Israel’s religious fanatics and the nucks Iran might produce are just bla-bla stuff for the washed American brains
Iran is developing nuclear weapons - Little doubt that is true.
Iran would use nuclear weapons - Very high probability of being true.
If Iran used a nuclear weapon once, they would never be around to do it again - Definitely true, because if Isreal and/or their Arab neighbors did not obliterate them, the United States would.
I agree with the earlier posts on North Korea. Who cares if they have a nuclear weapon since they have nothing to offer any nation except starving people and a non-functional economy. China does not want them, and South Korea has lowered their efforts at re-unification. A nuclear North Korea is at best a curiousity and at worse a non-starter in terms of provocation.
Iran, on the other hand, has a weapon that, if used, will essentially be turned on them with a vengeance. They also have something everyone in the world will fight for the right to divide up. For them, a nuclear weapon is not a deterrent; it's an invitation for provocation so someone can take their oil fields. Iran is putting an albatross around its own neck, if not a millstone.
North Korea has nothing to offer?
You should have told that to the Japanese when they embraced US citizenism, leading them to their colonization effort.
It would have saved them all the drama to follow.
US citizens, so much resources are allocated to propaganda so they can afford living in the comfort of their fabricated world view.
So funny.
Millennium Challenge 2002, Bitchez
Iran is certainly trying to build nuclear weapons. There is no need for them to build all those expensive centrifuges for a peaceful nuclear energy program. They are clearly following in Pakistan's footsteps. China, who now is a major supporter of Iran, gave Pakistan the plans for its first nuclear bomb and actually tested it for them in 1988.
How far Iran has gotten with its nuclear plans is anyone's guess. But they will have one eventually, probably within a few years. They might even have one now. The technology for nuclear weapons has advanced so far these days that you can test simple designs and be reasonably confident that they will work without actually exploding them.
The only question is whether they are crazy enough to actually use one in combat.
Captain Nukem:
Well, perhaps they don´t have to enrich uranium to the degree they do. On the other hand they don´t enrich it enough to use it for nukes. Furthermore, the CIA has up to now claimed that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
I think that Iran is a potential, political threat rather than a potential nuclear threat.
The Iranians have repeatedly been offered all the low-enriched uranium they could possibly need at bargain prices in exchange for giving up their enrichment program. Yet they continue to pursue an extremely expensive enrichment program in spite of sanctions.
And, given Fukushima, why is Iran even pursuing nuclear energy at all? Aren't most advanced countries in the process of abandoning nuclear energy?
As for the CIA, as I recall they stated just before the Iraq war that Iraq was working on nukes. But when Iraq was invaded, no evidence of this was found. They don't have a very good track record in this area. And even if Iran had discontinued its program in 2003, that was eight years ago and they could easily have restarted it since then.
Captain Nukem:
My comments:
Well, it´s true that the Iranians have been offered low-enriched uranium in exchange for giving up their enrichment program. But considering Iran´s highly controversial policy on Israel, their denial of the Holocaust, support for Hezbollah, support for radical Palestinian groups and so on, I don´t think that anyone seriously believe that the West would not try to stop deliveries of fuel to their nuclear plants once they have scrapped all their uranium enrichment equipment. Perhaps Russia would continue shipments of uranium as long as Vladimir Putin rules Russia. But definitely not under a president like Boris Yeltsin (his head of the National Security Council was Boris Berezovsky who was an Israeli citizen). China would might also continue shipments for a while. But if they can find another supplier of oil and if Huawei and other Chinese companies are threatened with problems abroad I suppose that China would throw Iran under the bus.
I also doubt that the West would refrain from stopping shipments of fuel to Iranian nuclear plants even if they would give up support for Hezbollah and radical Palestinians. Even the mere fact that they allow free speech for some political views which are outlawed in Europe and is very risky to support in the US makes Iran a potential problem. Neither Gaddafi nor Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction. The CIA has confirmed that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction. And Libya and Iraq didn´t even endorse political ideas that are outlawed in most European countries. They were attacked merely because they were a potential political problem because of the combination of oil and views on a certain country in the Middle East. Some people here on zerohedge also claim that the reason for the attacks on Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein was that they refused to accept USD as payment for oil. I don´t know whether that´s true or not. I suppose that it´s possible to check that out. In any case I doubt Iran will be paid in USD now when the West has launched a boycott on Iranian oil.
Furthermore, I also want to remind possible readers about the fact that enriching uranium does not violate the non-proliferation treaty which Iran has signed. It is perfectly legal for them to do so. And I can´t understand why observers and surveillance cameras could not be enough to make sure that the Iranians don´t enrich weapons grade uranium if they actually are entitled to enrich uranium.
I find your Fukushima argument better. In a previous post I wondered why they didn´t try to build thorium reactors instead, like India now is beginning to do. Somebody replied that Iran got lots of uranium within their borders but no thorium. If the Iranians would find enough thorium, I think that it would might be a great idea to phase out the uranium reactors and replace them with thorium reactors. That is probably also true for Japan, which also has been plagued by earthquakes frequently. The difference between Japan and Iran is that Japan does not face the same risk as Iran as regards interruption of thorium supply. I don´t know whether it would be possible for Iran to store, let´s say, 10 years supply of thorium on their on ground and what the cost would be.
Another risk, in addition to earth quakes, associated with uranium reactors is that Israeli, American or European covert operations may cause an “accident” and consequences similar to an accident caused by an earthquake. That is an additional reason for Iran to choose thorium reactors rather than uranium reactors. Furthermore, the general public in Iran may also not believe that an accident was caused by a covert operation but would rather blame the government for the accident.
But I don´t know whether thorium could be a solution for Iran. Thorium reactors take, as far as I know, also a small amount of uranium or plutonium when they get started. That would might be enough as an excuse for not letting them have thorium reactors either.
Another problem with replacing uranium reactors with thorium reactors is that it would probably take 10-15 years to build the thorium reactors. Would the West let Iran enrich uranium for another 10-15 years? And who would pay for those 10-15 years that the uranium reactors could operate in addition to the 10-15 years mentioned above? And who would pay for all the uranium related equipment that would be obsolete when the thorium reactors replace the uranium reactors?
I suspect that the Iranian leaders want nukes, especially now when they have seen what happened to Gaddafi who voluntarily scrapped his nuclear program. I think that the CIA in 2010 or 2011 said that Iran had discontinued its nuclear program back in 2003. I think that it was before the attack on Gaddafi. I don´t know whether the CIA thinks that Iran may have changed its mind after the attack on Gaddafi. Do you think so? (IAEA thinks that Iran MAY have resumed some weapons related nuclear research recently.) Gaddafi was attacked despite the fact that he voluntarily scrapped Libya´s nuclear program. I suppose that the majority of the Libyan people think that it is great that Gaddafi still was attacked. But I assume that the attack on Gaddafi does not help when trying to persuade the Iranian leaders that they won´t be attacked if the give up their uranium enrichment activities. But it also seems as if the Iranian leaders understand that the West will not allow them to get nukes. Furthermore, I assume that it would take too much time to get enough nukes to deter the West from an attack.
Another factor that may contribute to Iranian reluctance to give in is how media in the West reports on Iran and the Middle East. As far as I can see, the Iranian president has not said that he intends to nuke Israel or something like that. It seems as he wants some kind of reversed Zionism, i. e. that the Arabs and Muslims kick out the Jews and perhaps (in a best case scenario for the Jews) let descendants of Jews that lived there before the British occupation stay there. From a European perspective, from a purely selfish point of view, that is not worse for the Europeans than kicking out the Arabs from Palestine/Israel in 1948. I think that the most practical solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that the Palestinians who have been kicked out from Israel accept some kind of compensation in return for giving up all claims on property that has been seized in Israel and the right to return to Israel/Palestine. Perhaps most Palestinians would accept an offer amounting to, let´s say, $200 or $300 billion, I don´t know (ECB and FED can print money and give to Israel/Palestine).
It would probably be hard for Iran to exploit the Palestinian conflict if the Palestinians think they have been compensated enough. There are still some people in Europe and the US who are not willing to go to war for Israel because of their conflict with Arabs and Muslims who are pissed because some Palestinians got their property confiscated in 1948 and in the early 1950s. On the other hand there are Christians in Europe, and especially in the USA, who don´t believe in replacement theology who think that religion trumps rights to private property and that it was justified to kick out even Christian Palestinians. Other Europeans feel that since The Chief Mufti of Jerusalem supported Hitler it was just as justified to kick out the Palestinians from Palestine/Israel as kicking out Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. I have also seen the argument that since the Finns are not wailing so much about eastern Karelia which they lost to the Soviet Union in 1944 (the Finns fled or were kicked out from that area), why then can not the Palestinians accept that Jews took over Palestinian property?
Another reason, in addition to possible weapons of mass destruction, why Europeans feel that it may be justified to attack Iran is that Iranian women are forced to wear the veil. There are also people who for opportunist reasons think that it would be right to attack Iran. But most people probably don´t care or think that these "diaper head nutters" probably somehow get what they deserve. Those who oppose an attack on Iran primarily seem to be leftists who generally oppose the US foreign policy. But since European leftists were rather neutral on the attack on Gaddafi, who actually practised some kind of goofy socialism, I doubt they will oppose an attack on Iran more than they opposed the attack on Gaddafi.
If Iran were actually that evil a country instead of dumping billions into nuclear weapons they could easily fund a couple small labs for $10-20 million and develop some bio weapons like the Dutch just did with the H5N1.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/highly-contagious-bird-flu-virus-strain-created-dutch/story?id=15198051
You infect a few 100 martyrs put them on planes and and send them off to the US.
So really the Nuclear armed Iran propaganda is just that "propaganda to feed the military industrial complex".
or maybe insteead they could dump the money into education, development, sovereign wealth fund, healthcare...
I suspect that the US, the EU and Israel know what they are doing and that the Iranian leaders do not know what they are doing.
If the US and the EU are not buying any directly oil from Iran the impact on them will be smaller if Iranian oil will no longer reach the world market. But I guess that oil price would still sky rocket if something would happen to the Iranian oil supply to the world market.
I suppose that Iran´s threat to shut down the Strait of Hormuz is caused by a wish to compensate for the reduced impact on the West if the West no longer buys oil directly from Iran.
I also suspect that Iran overrates the fear Western leaders have for major economic disasters. If the US and the EU can not print money fast enough without causing hyperinflation an economic disaster will happen. I don´t think that will happen, but I´m not 100 % sure. I think that an event like that should undermine the confidence the general public have in the existing mainstream politicians and perhaps also in the big media. On the other hand it is always possible to blame only a limited number of the mainstream politicians for an economic disaster and then replace politicians and parties that have been tarnished by the economic disaster with other, similar politicians. Anyone who controls the big media which set the agenda and thereby decides which parties and candidates the electorate will consider or take seriously can replace parties and politicians that have failed with similar parties and politicians. I also suspect that mainstream media, if something happens, make a good a investment in their future credibility by also interviewing people like Marc Faber and Reggie Middleton.
And if an economic disaster actually would happen, it would be convenient to be able to blame that on a “necessary” attack on Iran. I suppose that this scenario is what Marc Faber refers to when he says that there may be an economic crisis which ends with a war.
So far, I think that Iran has made some extra money by the constant threat of war with Israel or the US. The buyers probably pay more on the average if there is a constant risk of oil shortage. But I think that even the Iranian leaders should agree that they are pursuing a risky strategy. I also assume that they will have to sell their oil at a discount since their customers can not know for sure whether their oil supply all of a sudden will be disrupted or not. In order to compensate for that risk the customer should either have some kind of insurance or pay for a buffer stock that will last until they can find other suppliers.
It also seems as if neither the Iranians nor other oil producing nations with similar regimes have made any attempts to buy media and politicians in Europe. Even though no other countries do that either and almost all minorities do not do that either I suppose that foreign policies or religious ideas which so obviously clash with modern, European political objectives and ideals and existing lobby groups and media owners should take bought media and bought political influence in order to minimize political problems stemming from Europe. But perhaps they feel that “if we mind or own business they should also mind their own business”. If they think that will work, they got to be rather naïve. I think that Gaddafi was naïve. I am not sure whether he could have prevented the election of Nicholas Sarkozy, but I assume that he regretted that he didn´t try when NATO had begun bombing. Furthermore, I suppose that the majority of the Libyans are grateful that their former leader was so naïve.
Especially for a country like Saudi Arabia It should have been fairly easy to bankroll various fronts that could have bought media and supported politicians which prefer a more pro-Islamic or pro-Arabic policy. My assessment is that the current comparatively pro-Islamic views among Swedish and Norwegian social democrats is not the result Islamic money but rather luck. In the 1960s, the Swedish social democrats were very pro-Israel. Trade Unions allied with the social democrats sent money to Israel after the war in 1967. The Swedish secret policy also sent information on Swedish citizens to the Israeli intelligence organization Shin Beth in the 1960s and early 1970s according to the well-known Swedish journalist Peter Bratt (who worked for the largest Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter up to his retirement). A few years later, the leader of the Swedish social democratic party Olof Palme became more pro-Islamic and pro-Arabic. The later minister of foreign affairs, Sten Andersson, also changed his views on the Middle Eastern conflict. Recently, the Swedish Christian social democratic organization Broderskaparna gave up their Christian identity so that Muslims also could join the organization. I laughed when I read that. This got to be the ultimate opposite to John Hagee and Jerry Falwell who see Christianity as merely a branch of Judaism and think that Jews, unlike others, don´t have to believe in Christ in order to go to heaven. No wonder Anders Behring Breivik didn´t like the current version of the Scandinavian social democrats.
Another media related thing that strikes me is that the Arabs and Muslims have not tried to create a replacement theology equivalent to the Scofield Bible which have been so extremely successful and has resulted in that a majority of Christian non-Catholics in the US now don´t believe in traditional replacement theology. This has been accomplished by a very modest initial investment. The political return on investment on the Scofield Bible got to be almost unsurpassed, especially combined with the selection of TV evangelists made by American TV Networks.
Another interesting question is to which extent the Iranian clerical leaders have been able to create some kind of managed opposition, i. e. opposition controlled by the government or opposition with similar political objectives as the government. My impression is that Arab and Muslim leaders do not master such basic political techniques. But perhaps such techniques are hard to combine with Islam? The only strength the Iranian leaders seem to have compared to leaders of other Muslim countries is that a significant portion of the population actually believes in Islam the way the government prescribes. This means that they would probably win a civil war. And if the combined forces of the Iranian opposition and the West would defeat the Islamic leaders and their followers, I guess that the death toll would be quite significant compared to Libya. The question is also how fast the transition to non-Islamic rule could happen. If this transition could take place fast I guess that the political risk for the West would be smaller. Perhaps it would be possible to take control of metropolitan areas, where the support for Islamic rule is weaker, faster than in rural areas. On the other hand, it is probably easier to knock out government forces in large cities rapidly, but attacks on major cities would perhaps weaken public support for the liberal and communist opposition. However, I reckon that professional political and military strategists in the West know exactly what they are doing once they strike and if they strike.
Furthermore, I wonder whether it would be possible to impose a unilateral blockade on Iranian oil shipments and protect other countries shipments of oil against Iranian retaliation. I doubt China would start world war III for Iranian oil shipments. And if Israel would be responsible for this blockade rather than Europe and the US, there would be no superpower conflict with China. Especially if China would be compensated for interrupted oil supplies from Iran and/or has a sufficient buffer stock of oil. I also know that there are some areas on the Iranian gulf coast with a sunni majority. Perhaps it would be possible to separate those areas and the oil which is found there from the rest of Iran. If there is enough oil there, the West could might try that option?
does anyone worry that, say, england might use its nuclear weapons against argentina? no, why? because the leaders of england are sane and rational. we cannot say that for iran and their leaders have repeated said, as have all israel's neighbors, that they will never allow people of the jewish race to be self governing, that their intent is to subjagate or eliminate the jewish people according to the commands of their islamic religious beliefs. now with neighbors like that where should one's sympathy lay?
Has israel ever threatened to wipe the muslims from the face of the earth and that kind of thing? No. All israel does is focus on developing its country and schools, cranking out patents and phds, trying to just go about their lives being left alone. Does anyone actually worry that Israel is going to nuke a neighboring country anymore than england is going to nuke argentina? No.
Yet it is israel that is called the agressor by trying to maintain its borders and be left alone surrounded by racists who want to kill them. it is like if you can imagine a small country of black people surrounded by the southern klan usa states in the 1800s and the little black country has a nuclear weapon and the klan states are trying to get nuclear weapons so they can prevent anyone from stopping them finishing off the black people, and everyone in the white southern states is calling the black country racists and Zinists and saying they are the agressor for defending their borders, for refusing to die.
Seriously, this just baffles me and it seems like an excuse just to make jewish people the new blacks now that it is not acceptable (possible) to dump on black people anymore in the usa.
But for me the bottom line is that no country that says it has the right to deny another country to exist and that is run by religious fanatics can be assumed sane and rational. We dont even allow people who are not sane and rational to get a drivers license so how can we trust them with the keys to a nuclear bomb? nuclear bombs make sense as long as they are never used. these people might actually use them in their apocolyptic shiite minds thinking they are like jamie diamond doing god's work. Oh, excuse me allah's work. But its all the same. I wouldnt trust goldmand with a nuclear bomb, either.
I endure injustice, wanted moncler outlet to mean to say I just graduated comrade, competent moncler jackets 2011 soon, but with my efforts women moncler jackets have get an electrician moncler jackets for men title, I also go to a number moncler women vests of units in practice, the motor, circuit men moncler vest board, fitter, welder contact with many http://www.cheapmonclerssjackets.com/
Draw water christian louboutin pumps smoke, the pen sales louboutins with ink stones, paint with all three louboutins sales thousand dreams. Clear anxious on fu, in the night, and between looking back, thin christian louboutin ankle boots film of window edge, do not see the old appearance. Ink christian louboutin boots really lock, drunk sleepless, two lines were crying. http://www.salescheaplouboutins.com/
But more christian louboutins store and more discount christian louboutin shoes sale challenges ahead cheap louboutins but often at waiting for christian louboutin boots me to challenge, will face in people, in the christian louboutin discount face of the thing. which one are not simple to deal cheap christian louboutin pumps with, but I have to face, and still have to deal with. http://www.cheaplouboutinsssssstores.com/
The Jewish supremacists jumped the shark with 9-11. Now, any outrage is possible.