PDA

View Full Version : The Neobolshevik Neocon Fairy Tale attack on Iran



Tet
01-07-07, 03:48 PM
The great fairy tales are written in a way to make the unbelievable reality. J.K. Rowling certainly made a large fortune with her best selling Harry Potter series doing just that. The villains are always true psychopathís intent on ruling the world and this Iranian War fairy tale certainly has plenty of villains in its cast of characters. I guess if you can believe in witches, flying broomsticks, magic wands, casting spells and secret potions you can believe in the upcoming Iranian War fantasy.

The realities of an Iranian War are such that you know from the outset it will never take place, but that never stops a great fairy tale from being told and for many to believe in it. For those caught up in the fantasy wishing it to be true, maybe we should review the very basic principle of why witches canít fly. Even the psychopath wonít take an action when he knows that the outcome will lead to his downfall and the psychopaths that are trumpeting this upcoming war certainly realize they have no chance of success.

The list of reasons there will be no war is a long one, so I will only touch upon a few of them to prove this point. Preceding the Iraq War there was $50 billion of foreign investment d0llars waiting to be invested. This money had not yet been spent so there were only opportunity costs that were lost when the war took place. Preceding the Iranian fantasy we find that China and India have committed $200 billion towards Iranís oil and natural gas industry, much of these investment d0llars having already been spent. These two Iranian oil and gas customers have large armies, navies, air forces and nuclear weapons to defend their investment. Most importantly what these two countries have is between them over a trillion d0llars of US and British oligarch investments that have been made in their two countries. If war breaks out, at the stroke of a pen these investments will be nationalized by China and India. India was just told that Michael Dell of Dell Computer was hiring 5,000 people in India; Bill Gates was just in India getting ready to invest $4 billion, IC foundries are being set up in India and if these investments get nationalized itís the Oligarchs not India who become the losers. This I can assure you will not be allowed to happen and the only way this doesnít happen is there is no war.

Russia another large nuclear armed country has a lot to lose in any Iranian conflict as well. Currently Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Iran with contracts in place to build 20 more. In 1981 Israel launched a surprise attack on Iraqís Osiraq nuclear facility; this is a matter of recorded history. Certainly there were guarantees made by Russia that this type of attack couldnít occur and Russia placed surface to air missile systems in place to protect this investment. Before the Iraq War foreign contractors left the country, today we find that Russian contractors working on Iranís nuclear power plants are still in the country.

Recently we even had Georgia a country in the coalition of the coerced that just signed a natural gas deal with Iran. Why would this deal occur if there was going to be a war? Certainly stable natural gas supplies during winter are something that needs to be counted on. Pakistan as well stands to lose billions if their natural gas pipeline is not allowed to go forward as well. France and Japan rely heavily upon Iranian crude and Iím sure they donít have the reserves to handle any long term interruption of supply. Chirac has already implied that any disruption to Frances strategic supplies will be answered with nuclear weapons. Certainly any attack on Iran will lead to a long term disruption of supply; the Strait of Hormuz would be too easy for the Iranians to close down.

Preceding the Iraq War the build-up of military sales going on in the US was huge. Today against a much larger foe there is no US build-up of military sales going on. According to the GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2005, actual defense spending in the US declined by 13%. The believers of the Iranian War fantasy will cry out this is just a ruse, but when looking at the actual numbers from defense contractors in the US there is no visible activity going on to justify the war fantasy. No matter what military action the US would take against Iran, munitions will be used and need to be replaced. Assets such as planes, ships and helicopters will be lost and Iím sure the US would already have an idea of how many and orders six months ago would have been made for their replacement. No such actions by the US have been taken.

Preceding the Iraq War we know that Iraq was subject to 10 years of sanctions and virtually had no military defense capabilities. Iran has not been subject to such sanctions and is guaranteed to put up a good fight. Iran has missiles capable of hitting Jerusalem and Tel Avi; Iraq certainly had no such deterrent. Iran can hit Saudi oil fields as well as shut down the Strait of Hormuz that would prevent about 60% of the worldís oil exports from taking place. Iran unlike Iraq is more than capable of defending itself.

Preceding the Iraq War, Saddam found himself with no allies. Preceding this Iranian War fantasy Ahmadinejad finds himself with countless allies. Venezuela could easily stop the flow of 15% of US oil imports if this fantasy is to occur. More importantly South America still finds itself with hundreds of billions of US and European investments that the new nationalists of South America would love to nationalize. I would think to a large degree Iran can count on China, India, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, South Africa, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, France and much of the Arab world to play some role in fighting off US/UK/Israeli aggression. Against such a foe the psychotic villains that are playing the bad guys will not venture to fight. Remember according to the fantasy world of Harry Potter these villains only attack little boys and girls.

If there is going to be no war than what are the intentions of the US/UK/Israeli aggressors? I can assure you there is trillions of d0llars worth of reasons for this little fantasy to be playing out. All one has to do is look back to the Dot.com bubble implosion to see how those in the know can pull-out trillions of d0llars worth of wealth. Remember that Sir Templeton and Charles Swaab had no money invested in the NASDAQ bubble when that bubble popped. Likewise with the commodity bubble that has been created, bringing us almost $70 oil, almost $600 gold, record copper prices, none of the insiders are buyers right now and all of them are sellers. Certainly in a war these commodities will skyrocket and any idiot knows thatís what would occur. One only needs to ask oneself why the commodity insiders arenít buying to know what is about to occur. There are trillions of d0llars about to be pulled from the commodity market that is guaranteed.


I wrote this almost a year ago, I see no reason for this position to change.

jk
01-07-07, 09:30 PM
i too am a non-believer in a war on iran. do not put too much faith in rationality, however. i think the biggest problem with u.s. policy in iraq has been that members of the current administration believe their own bs. e.g. otherwise, why no post-war plans? because we'd be greeted as liberators. why no counter-insurgency? because the guys planting bombs were just a ragtag bunch of losers. why no thought about sectarian differences? because, essentially, it was supposed to play like a repeat of the liberation of paris in wwii. at least part of the u.s. tough talk on iran is meant to be heard by the speaker, not by any other audience. the "leadership" of this country likes to hear itself talk tough.

Tet
01-08-07, 12:18 AM
i too am a non-believer in a war on iran. do not put too much faith in rationality, however. i think the biggest problem with u.s. policy in iraq has been that members of the current administration believe their own bs. e.g. otherwise, why no post-war plans? because we'd be greeted as liberators. why no counter-insurgency? because the guys planting bombs were just a ragtag bunch of losers. why no thought about sectarian differences? because, essentially, it was supposed to play like a repeat of the liberation of paris in wwii. at least part of the u.s. tough talk on iran is meant to be heard by the speaker, not by any other audience. the "leadership" of this country likes to hear itself talk tough.

Unwinable wars are the best wars for Wall Street and London to have. There was never a plan to leave Iraq, so why would it require a post war plan? 12 permament bases and a $3 billion embassy were the first things we built. Where would Halliburton be today without this war, bankruptcy was where it was headed in 2001 until the war broke out. What would a barrel of oil cost today without this war? Would the Seven Sisters be setting world record profits without this war? Everything is going to plan, you don't spend the entire nations treasury on something and not have it go to plan. Sectarian violence is how the Brits have always colonized their empire. Who was it but Brits putting cow heads into Hindu beds and blamming it on the Muslims when the Brits were forced to leave India. Plenty of Brits have been caught in Iraq dressing up as clerics, with IED's and bomb laden cars already, most Iraqi's are quite aware of how the Brits go to battle.

What was the first act of the US when we rode into Baghdad but to turn the petrol switch in Iraq back to d0llars from the Euros it was selling in. What was the value of a d0llar when Iraq was selling oil for Euros? It was 120 on the index if I remember correctly. The war goes exactly to plan, there have been absolutely no surprises, talking tuff on Iran is just Wall Streets way of getting the cows to continue holding the bag.

misterenigma
01-08-07, 12:41 PM
So what, in your opinion, is Israel's role in this scenario? Are they genuinely motivated as to the stoppage of Iran's nuclear program, or, are they merely acting out a role of potential victimhood as part of a public relations snowjob?

Tet
01-08-07, 01:08 PM
So what, in your opinion, is Israel's role in this scenario? Are they genuinely motivated as to the stoppage of Iran's nuclear program, or, are they merely acting out a role of potential victimhood as part of a public relations snowjob?
The Israelis have always supported the Reserve currency, without it there would be no state of Israel. It's the Yom Kippur War that creates the Petrol D0llar in the 1970's in the first place. The invasion of Lebanon gets oil up to $80 during the summer. Where would oil be today without that invasion?
Interesting site The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/1973_Oil_Shock/1973_oil_shock.html

As Henry Kissinger once noted, "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."

Israel helps Wall Street and the Bank of England control the money.

Pervilis Spurius
01-09-07, 02:41 PM
T
Interesting site The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/1973_Oil_Shock/1973_oil_shock.html




Engdahl's historical theories make for interesting and thought provoking reading, however, he has a habit of getting basic details incorrect. I can't speak to the article noted above.

Tet
01-09-07, 02:52 PM
Engdahl's historical theories make for interesting and thought provoking reading, however, he has a habit of getting basic details incorrect. I can't speak to the article noted above.
Certainly when I disagree with something I can never point out examples either. He's just wrong because you can't remember, got it. Engdahl has the best track record out there, no comparisons.

Pervilis Spurius
01-09-07, 03:47 PM
Certainly when I disagree with something I can never point out examples either. He's just wrong because you can't remember, got it. Engdahl has the best track record out there, no comparisons.


Mreowr!! FFFFT! FFFFT! (my best online impression of a feisty feline):)

Nowhere did I state that I couldn't remember, just that I couldn't speak to that particular article (1973 was before my time).

To quote Mr. Engdahl (from his "China lays down the Gauntlet in Energy War")


In October, Russia's Lukoil failed in its bid to buy up the Kazakh state oil company, PetroKazakhstan, in a privatization.

.......In October, Nazarbayev announced that CNPC had won the bid to buy PetroKazakhstan.

Fact is Petrokazakhstan was not the state oil company, therefore, the sale was not a privatization. Petrokazakhstan was a Canadian company operating in Kazakhstan with Canadian management(who incidentally had Jean Chretien on the BOD, the former Canadian and very hostile to U.S. PM). Nazarbayev, therefore did not announce that CNPC won the bid to buy PKZ. PKZ announced this sale.

Interestingly, it was only after the Chinese bought PKZ that the Kazakh NOC purchased a sizable stake in PKZ from the Chinese.


In perusing some of his other articles I noted some other factual inaccuracies, but my memory runs particularly deep in regards to Petrokazakhstan.

Tet
01-09-07, 03:56 PM
Fact is Petrokazakhstan was not the state oil company, therefore, the sale was not a privatization. Petrokazakhstan was a Canadian company operating in Kazakhstan with Canadian management(who incidentally had Jean Chretien on the BOD, the former Canadian and very hostile to U.S. PM). Nazarbayev, therefore did not announce that CNPC won the bid to buy PKZ. PKZ announced this sale.

Interestingly, it was only after the Chinese bought PKZ that the Kazakh NOC purchased a sizable stake in PKZ from the Chinese.


In perusing some of his other articles I noted some other factual inaccuracies, but my memory runs particularly deep in regards to Petrokazakhstan.

Great read and great call on his part, or are you not familiar that Petrokazakhstan is transiting oil from Russia to China from this? I guess I can see how you would think he's incorrect, what currency do you suppose the Petrokazakhstan pipeline flows to China in for the last year now?

Pervilis Spurius
01-09-07, 04:32 PM
Great read and great call on his part, or are you not familiar that Petrokazakhstan is transiting oil from Russia to China from this? I guess I can see how you would think he's incorrect, what currency do you suppose the Petrokazakhstan pipeline flows to China in for the last year now?

To the extent that PKZ is transiting Russian oil, it would have to be from the Turgai field that was a JV with Lukoil. But then they also had a JV with the Germans on another field. PKZ was a production and refining company so, I'm not sure what you mean here.

As far as the currency used in the transactions for the last year, don't know. Do you know it to be rubles or euros?

jk
01-09-07, 04:52 PM
Unwinable wars are the best wars for Wall Street and London to have. There was never a plan to leave Iraq, so why would it require a post war plan? 12 permament bases and a $3 billion embassy were the first things we built. Where would Halliburton be today without this war, bankruptcy was where it was headed in 2001 until the war broke out. What would a barrel of oil cost today without this war? Would the Seven Sisters be setting world record profits without this war? Everything is going to plan, you don't spend the entire nations treasury on something and not have it go to plan. Sectarian violence is how the Brits have always colonized their empire. Who was it but Brits putting cow heads into Hindu beds and blamming it on the Muslims when the Brits were forced to leave India. Plenty of Brits have been caught in Iraq dressing up as clerics, with IED's and bomb laden cars already, most Iraqi's are quite aware of how the Brits go to battle.

What was the first act of the US when we rode into Baghdad but to turn the petrol switch in Iraq back to d0llars from the Euros it was selling in. What was the value of a d0llar when Iraq was selling oil for Euros? It was 120 on the index if I remember correctly. The war goes exactly to plan, there have been absolutely no surprises, talking tuff on Iran is just Wall Streets way of getting the cows to continue holding the bag.

you have more faith in people and in bureaucracies than i do, tet. your thesis on this, as on many other matters, is that THEY are carrying out their plots quite flawlessly. whereas i think the processes are more screwed up than that.

Tet
01-09-07, 05:04 PM
you have more faith in people and in bureaucracies than i do, tet. your thesis on this, as on many other matters, is that THEY are carrying out their plots quite flawlessly. whereas i think the processes are more screwed up than that.
I think to a large degree you are correct, Putin said when the war started we had opened up Pandora's Box, truly no telling what is going to come out of it. But so far, those who wanted the war have profited quite nicely. I am one who understands though that you need to hype what you want to unload and you need to trash what you want to accumulate. This requires a lot of misleading information to be given to the masses and Wall Street does seem to have a pretty firm hand on what the masses are given. I don't believe the war is any different.

Spartacus
07-08-07, 05:54 PM
members of the current administration believe their own bs.
I really don't agree. My cynicism runs much deeper - by my estimation, Bush/Cheney reasoned that once the deed is done, the people will rally to support you. The people believed your lies (willfully believed, or IOW participated in their own hoodwinking - on many discussion boards before the war I was pointing out the lies but was mostly ignored, ridiculed, attacked - none of the arguments were refuted), but their need to believe they're NOT gullible simpleton buffoons will come to your(Bush/Cheney/Rove)'s aid.


e.g. otherwise, why no post-war plans?
because a people who knew you were lying but were complicit in their own hoodwinking will not turn on you - classic Applied psychology (cognitive dissonance)

The lies you told will be forgotten or defended (today on many internet sites and discussion boards there are people who will attack you worse than any rabid foaming at the mouth dog if you ever accuse Bush of lying the US into war)

Some people will even make up more outlandish crap than the original stuff because their CD is so bad - could CD be the reason Coulter got more and more repulsive ?

Even after I've written all the above, I'm AMAZED the Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo and Libby and Padilla freakshows haven't resulted in far, far worse civil disobedience - all the above only partly explains it, I'd be happy to hear other theories.


it was supposed to play like a repeat of the liberation of paris in wwii

Mauldin ( apparently some kind of long term hack in the Texas republican party) played this up several times ("it didn't look good in Germany, either ca 194x") ... he hasn't written much about Iraq for a while, and I thought he was a guy who could own up to his mistakes ... CD again? Or maybe he's decided that shutting up about it is the best way not to draw any attention ....