Soju:

 Europe is in a recession they will back up the U.S even if Israel destroyed their plants like they did Syria. The U.S won't attack Iran, they don't have to. This article is utter garbage; no different then the tripe from televangelists predicting the end of the world.

Well it ain't coming.

 

Two things:

1) If this attack does happen on Iran, look for the global economic recession to deepen into a Depression, with oil going above $200 a barrel oil easily, therefore, for the sake of both the U.S. economy and the global economy, it would be unwise for Bush to attack Iran, let alone any country, for that matter, especially unilaterally. In fact, the global reaction to U.S. and Israel attacking Iran, especially if the facts are not there to justify such an action (see Iraq War runup) would be very negative, especially if the countries that are against the attack cut off trade with the U.S. or issue sanctions against the U.S. and Israel, which would hurt the economy. Either way, both everyone, such an attack, in summary, would devastate not only the U.S. economy, but it would also severely harm the global economy to the point that "if" we are in a global recession, it could possibly deepen into a Depression, possibly equivalent to what we saw back in 1929, depending on the market and economic reaction to such events .    

2) I have been debating this with my friends and colleagues as to how Europe would take sides. Europe would be in a very tough spot as to which side they could choose. They, on the one hand, are big supporters of Israel, like the U.S., but any unjustified attack on Iran would cause a SEVERE strain on the relationship, even causing some of them to question the relations altogether.

As for the end of the world.......an attack on Iran would bring China and Russia into the picture, and I have seen many doomsday prophecies that predicted China and Russia to side with the Middle East versus the rest of the world for World War III. An attack in 2008 or 2009 would lead to World War III lasting three years or so, followed by a nuclear holocaust that would devastate the world. This would be perfectly timed (if this all in fact comes true, by the way) to the end of the world happening on Friday, December 21, 2012, which has said to be the day of reckoning, "IF" you go by the doomsayers and the ancient Mayan propheices.  

Soju:

 Europe is in a recession they will back up the U.S even if Israel destroyed their plants like they did Syria. The U.S won't attack Iran, they don't have to. This article is utter garbage; no different then the tripe from televangelists predicting the end of the world.

Well it ain't coming. 

 

The whole world is in a recession, and when Isreal destroyed IRAQ's nuke plants no one knew about it until after it was over, Isreal did not inform any nation in the world of their strike times or plans, and I never heard of Isreal destroying any nuke plant in Syria. As far as the world ending, I have never heard any televangalist predict the end of the world, what they are predicting is the end of days as we know them, not mankind.

 Iraq at that time though, had no such ally. Early into our direct involvement with the middle east, the States threw support behind Iraq (actually, it flipped flopped between Iraq and Iran and I do believe it was the US that put Hussein in power to begin with because he backed the US at one point). One of the largest politcal donations come from the US Jewish lobby. I don't think that politicians at that time would allow the US to go against the will of Isreal.

 This is a very informative thread. :-) Lots to think about. And be blessed by!

 Once upon a time in the Middle East, for anyone to gain power over their Nation was to say to the States that they had support.  Despite how they ruled their nation was irrellivant.  Once they had the deemed US support, they would help "protect" US interests.

Iraq's Hussein, pulled out of such agreement and yes, the CIA and other operatives loyal to the States did try to oust him... repeatedly throughout the years that followed.

Other nations that were once loyal to the states, received $$, weaponry and what ever support needed.  It was easy to manipulate the States during the cold war by then agreeing to Soviet backing.

It was and still is one incredible mess. Iran had a revolt ousting those loyal to the States but that was risks that were accepted by the States.  Governments that ruled with might ran the risk of the rise of extremists within those borders because of authoritarian rule which later became replaced with authoritarian rule.

During the cold war, like I said, was easy to manipulate.  Tribal warlords in Afganistan received training, weapons and financial support by the States to counter the then Soviet offensives.  One such warlord was.... bin Laden.  Once the Soviet threat withdrew, saw the infighting amongst warlords (the vaccuum effect).  Again, it was an acceptable risk to accept that the hand that fed could become bit.  No doubt, it was attempted to keep these tribal leaders in check, but how can you do this when the now "enemy" was so heavily entrenched among the common citizen.  Once again, rose extremism.

You can blame whatever or whoever you want, but the fact remains, messes need to be cleaned up but need to be treaded carefully. 

Face it my friend, Irishgreek. The Reagan revolution is coming to a merciless end. The Trickle down, Corporate, economics of the past 28 years or so, have been a disasterous failure. Policies which bring about the elimination of ones own Middle Class usually are.

Forget 2008. The Repubs.will be fortunate if on the morning of Nov.5th. they have enough elected members left to still be able to call themselves a Party. (please forgive my probably overly enthusiastic forecast.)

The turning point was in 2006 When the Dems. held onto every seat in the Congress while sweeping seven Republican Senators out of the Senate. And took back the house by a wider margin than the Repulicans held prior to election night 2006.

I shudder to think what if, what if, the Repulicans had somehow managed to hang on to the control of Congress in 2006. Two more years of Bush legislations, with the Repulican Congress, (as it had for the previous six years,) walking in lockstep with the worse Administration, our Government has ever had.   

Carpe Diem.!!

 

irishgreek:

Mr. Magoo:

Seti03:

Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

Carpe Diem.!!

So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.

  Even though we seldom ever agree, I think an Obama Presidency is now about a 60-40 likelihood. I think it would be a total disaster, but that may be what the American people need to wake them up once and for all.

 

Luckymothrsmate, this is amazing info. thanks. Just had a funny thought. Here I am on the Fourth of July analyzing  DoomsDay scenarios. How Appropriate!  (LOL>>>)

 

Carpe Diem.

 

luckymothersmate:

 I can answer that with several words... China, Russia, Pakistan and any other country that also has the bomb that could come to Iran's aid.  No amount of ally can save the US if these bombs start flying.  Pakistan at India, India in retaliation, China/Russia at Europe, eachother and the US, Isreal at anything that moves, Europe in retaliation... etc... There are more than enough senerios that have already looked at the "what if" factor.  Pay careful attention to scenerio 2 and 3.

  A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states.  Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons.  While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy.  If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.
     Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber.  These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles.  Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroys nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities.  Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons. 
    Below are seven scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive.  U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations' weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking.  Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.

GENERAL SCENARIOS

      Accidental:  Since the United States and Russia have "launch on warning" systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning -- no matter how false the warning may be.

    Aggressive:  One or more nations decides to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state , of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even accidental attack.)

    Pre-emptive:  One or more nations believes (correctly or incorrectly) or claims to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets and pre-emptively attacks that nation.  May result from political or military "brinkmanship."

     Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack -- or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS
     There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like the below.  My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a "use it or lose it" philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies.   This continues until most of the planets' 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted.  In making "limited nuclear war" calculations all nations should assume "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong."  Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.
      Related assumptions include:
        **  Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters, by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on "The Dead Hand" strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets.  Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.
        ** Any nuclear attack on US and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive US and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.
        ** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.
        ** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals.  A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on  European and Russian targets.  The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
       ** Any nation's use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.

---

NOTE: COLORS OF LINES AND DESCRIPTIONS ARE COORDINATED

Aggressive      Pre-Emptive      Retaliatory     Accidental

SCENARIO 1.  RUSSIA OR U.S. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS GLITCH DURING TIME OF TENSION AS NUCLEAR ATTACK, LEADING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

During time of minor or major political tension, especially active U.S. bombings of other nations or any use of nuclear weapons, Russian commanders' faulty early warning system detects false evidence of a nuclear attack from the U.S.   Russia launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability.   The U.S. and Europe retaliate at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks.  Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates aggressive attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.  India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability. (While less likely the United States would experience such a glitch, if so, the U.S. would strike Russia and China, they would retaliate against the U.S. and Europe and probably attack other potentially hostile nuclear powers to knock out their capability.)

---

SCENARIO 2. U.S. OR RUSSIA THREATEN OR ENGAGE IN MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST SMALLER NATION, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Russia and US engage in threats over further US aggression in the Middle East or Russia's refusal to withdraw troops from former Soviet Republic Georgia.  Russia and/or the U.S. pre-emptively strike the others' nuclear targets, leading to further rounds of retaliatory exchanges. Russia strikes pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability.  Europe retaliates at Russia and U.S. attacks China to destroy any remaining nuclear stocks.  Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability.

---

SCENARIO 3. ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND/OR SYRIA AND LEBANON WHICH RETALIATE WITH MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL OR WMD ROCKET ATTACKS, ISRAEL RETALIATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ESCALATING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities and/or Syria and Lebanon.  These countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs and even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons.   Israel responds with nuclear strikes against these nations and Pakistan.  Outraged Pakistan retaliates against Israel and pre-emptively attacks Israel's ally/Pakistan's enemy India, which retaliates.  Israel initiates "Samson option" and attacks Arab and Muslim capitols, as well as "antisemitic" Europe and Russia.  Russian regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and U.S. European allies and China, to destroy its nuclear capability.  The U.S. retaliates against Russia and hits China's nuclear capability.  China uses any remaining nuclear weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against China.

---

SCENARIO 4. INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR EXCHANGE ESCALATES TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Hindu and Muslim rioting or conflicts in Kashmir escalate into preemptive nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan. A rogue Indian general strikes China which massively retaliates.   Russian communications knocked out by electromagnetic pulses hit Europe and China with limited number of missiles. U.S. retaliates against Russia and attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Russia retaliates against the U.S. and hits U.S. ally Israel. Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.

---

SCENARIO 5.  CHINA INVADES TAIWAN, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Taiwan declares independence. China begins Taiwan invasion, threatening to use nuclear weapons against  U.S. cities.  U.S. gives China an ultimatum to pull out which it ignores and U.S. uses nuclear weapons to destroy China's weapons. China retaliates against U.S. and nukes Taiwan.  A few nervous or chauvinistic Russian regional missile commanders make a first strike against U.S., European and Israeli nuclear weapons sites.   The U.S., Israel and Europe retaliate.  Israel initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols.  Pakistan, India and China exchange pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

---

SCENARIO 6. UNKNOWN PARTIES USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON ISRAEL, RUSSIA OR THE  U.S. STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Terrorists or some unknown nation explodes one or two nuclear weapons in Russia, Israel, or U.S., possibly delivered via surreptitious means.  Russia and the U.S. blame each other escalating to mutual "retaliatory" attacks, including on Europe. If Russia attacks Israel, Israel immediately initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols, and possibly "anti-semitic" Europe and Russia.   Russia and U.S. preemptively attack China, and India and Pakistan pre-emptively attack each other, to destroy nuclear and military capabilities.

 

************************** 

Soju:

 Europe is in a recession they will back up the U.S even if Israel destroyed their plants like they did Syria. The U.S won't attack Iran, they don't have to. This article is utter garbage; no different then the tripe from televangelists predicting the end of the world.

Well it ain't coming. 

 

 

How are you so sure Obama is the answer to anything? You bank a lot of confidence in a Democrat, when with the democratic congress for the past few years, we have fallen into worsening conditions. I'm astounded as to how many people have all their hopes and dreams pinned on this guy. Go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid.

Windbreaker, I think they make sure they are in front of their TV at 5:30 to get the world "news" and their marching orders. 

Windbreaker, I think they make sure they are in front of their TV at 5:30 to get the world "news" and their marching orders. 

Wow.

 I personally don't think that either candidate is right for the job.  I think that Obama is the lesser of two evils this year as McCain is actually in a better position by means of foreign policy to destroy the interests of the US faster than Obama.  At least Obama did express that he was willing to sit down at the negotiating table, where as, McCain and many of his fellow Republicans can't seem to get their heads from their arses and acknowledge any other country's right to autonomous rule.

The conservatives on here have overtly expressed that with a police state, they would take up their arms to oppose such an event.  Well, wake up and realize that that is exactly what each administration Democratic and Republican alike have done to many countries in the world... and the end result has been what was expressed in many posts, arms taken to oppose a police rule.

Let's not forget that imposing US will upon the world started the events leading up to 9/11 effectively making each administration Democratic and Republican alike, responsible through foreign policy, 9/11 itself and that is far removed from conspiracy, that is fact.

And why do I always seem to get thrown to the Liberal side???  My experience is that of a Military Officer and Political Scientist. 

American presidental elections is usually about picking the lesser of two evils!

benhilo:

American presidental elections is usually about picking the lesser of two evils!

 

Not always but pretty much for the most part

Seti03:

Face it my friend, Irishgreek. The Reagan revolution is coming to a merciless end. The Trickle down, Corporate, economics of the past 28 years or so, have been a disasterous failure. Policies which bring about the elimination of ones own Middle Class usually are.

Forget 2008. The Repubs.will be fortunate if on the morning of Nov.5th. they have enough elected members left to still be able to call themselves a Party. (please forgive my probably overly enthusiastic forecast.)

The turning point was in 2006 When the Dems. held onto every seat in the Congress while sweeping seven Republican Senators out of the Senate. And took back the house by a wider margin than the Repulicans held prior to election night 2006.

I shudder to think what if, what if, the Repulicans had somehow managed to hang on to the control of Congress in 2006. Two more years of Bush legislations, with the Repulican Congress, (as it had for the previous six years,) walking in lockstep with the worse Administration, our Government has ever had.   

Carpe Diem.!!

 

irishgreek:

Mr. Magoo:

Seti03:

Very good Magoo. And I'm glad to see you posting something of substance. All, I can say to your thread here is that an Obama presidency, can't get here soon enough.

Carpe Diem.!!

So you must want the destruction of this nation as fast as with McInsane.

  Even though we seldom ever agree, I think an Obama Presidency is now about a 60-40 likelihood. I think it would be a total disaster, but that may be what the American people need to wake them up once and for all.

 

I wouldn't gloat just yet, it's not becoming. If you remember correctly, the current problems in the middle east took a horrible turn during the carter administration, what there was of it. I think so little of him that he doesn't deserve a capital for his name. He is a small man in every sense of the word. He has become a laughingstock in the years since he left office, always being on the wrong side of every issue. How your stock can actually go down after you leave office, is not an easy task to accomplish. No problem for jabberin jimmy. Stick with something you know something about like PEANUTS and HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.