Pax United States

[maplesyrup]

It should be pretty obvious who is next on the US hit parade - it is going to be Iran.

And the reason is not complicated - just take a look at the earth's oil reserves and it is should NOT be hard to figure out:

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2003

2002

rank Country 2003 proved reserves (billion barrels)

1. Saudi Arabia 261.7

2. Iraq 115.0

3. Iran 100.1

4. Kuwait 98.9

5. United Arab Emirates 63.0

6. Russia 58.8

7. Venezuela 53.1

8. Nigeria 32.0

9. Libya 30.0

10. China 23.7

So how does the US go about it - well let's see:

Powell accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear missiles

Bush Confronts New Challenge on Issue of Iran

In an eerie repetition of the prelude to the Iraq war, hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about Iran's nuclear capacities to make the case that Iran is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or "regime change."

[maplesyrup]

Waiting for Iraq

They were never that confident that President George W. Bush would

lose the election, or that Senator John Kerry would make much difference if

he won.  They know that there is now a broad consensus in the United States

on the desirability of imposing a "Pax Americana" on the world through the

unilateral exercise of overwhelming US military power. They will never

accept that, but they still want to avoid a direct confrontation with the

United States as that would also destroy the multilateral system.  So they

are hoping that the war in Iraq will erode US popular support for the whole

unilateralist adventure

Maybe we had better wake up and realize what kind of neighb bour we really have next door.

[Guest eureka]

Iran is more than twice the population size of Iraq. Bush may be stupid enough to think he can take it but I am sure the American military commanders have learned the lesson.

[Black Dog]

Iran is more than twice the population size of Iraq. Bush may be stupid enough to think he can take it but I am sure the American military commanders have learned the lesson.

The same military commanders who were overruled by the civilians at the Pentagon when they said that they didn't have enough troops to pacify Iraq?

You have to remember, the neocon approach to foreign policy is largely faith-based: they accept a certain doctrine (remember: "Americans will be greeted in Baghdad with flowers") and will brook no dissent from infidels who know better.

[maplesyrup]

Powell's statement on Iran based on unverified source: Report :

Shades of WMD in Iraq anyone? /35

[Chloe]

I have a question....

While the US decided to go into Iraq because of Sadam and what not.....people were saying that Iran is more of a threat than Iraq. So now America is setting their eyes on Iran.....the place where people said America should have looked at first (In regards to weapons of mass destruction)...... so are we now saying that the threat no longer exists?

In any case I highly doubt Bush is going to start anything with Iran unless he wants to be assisinated by people who already hate him.

[maplesyrup]

The United States presently is our planet's one super power, and they intend to go down fighting. They don't want to give up their position of world dominance, and this is their last kick at the can. Their economy depends on oil, they don't have enough, and they are going to take what they need, to keep their economy going, come hell or high water. Or so they think.

And if Martin ever gets a majority government, Canada will be right beside them like a dirty shirt. What do you think the real reason is that Parrish is so upset?

[maplesyrup]

Bush Says Iran Speeds Output of A-Bomb Fuel

The president's comments marked the second time this week that the administration has accused Iran of heading quickly toward nuclear weapons, despite its protestations to the contrary.

Sounds like a man on a mission, don't ya think?

[Chloe]

What I was asking is with regard to Iran, did people (analysts, reporters, governments, and people who hate Bush) claim that Iran was more of a threat when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction. Did people not say that. Did people not say we should be focusing on Iran because of their growing nuclear program.

So how is it that people are now saying Bush is doing it again when these are the same people that said Iran is more of a threat. This what I don't understand.

So now because we all hate BUsh are we going to ignore the fact that Iran is a threat or at least a possible one, and claim bush wants to exapnd his empire.

My question is Iran no longer a threat?

[MapleBear]

What I was asking is with regard to Iran, did people (analysts, reporters, governments, and people who hate Bush) claim that Iran was more of a threat when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction. Did people not say that. Did people not say we should be focusing on Iran because of their growing nuclear program.

So how is it that people are now saying Bush is doing it again when these are the same people that said Iran is more of a threat. This what I don't understand.

So now because we all hate BUsh are we going to ignore the fact that Iran is a threat or at least a possible one, and claim bush wants to exapnd his empire.

My question is Iran no longer a threat?

This is indeed an interesting fix Bush has gotten us into. (Is gotten a word??? I always write it by instinct in sentences like this.)

Ordinarily, the idea of a Muslim nation in or near the the Middle East armed with nuclear weapons should scare the Hell out of us. But who she we be MOST afraid of - the religious kooks running Iran or the religious kooks in Washington, D.C.?

Every nation has a right to defend itself, and the Iranians must be frightened to death, with the world's chief religious kook laying waste to Iraq next door.

As a U.S. citizen, I also like the idea of a new nuclear power that can block Bush's expanionist policies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It's still scary as Hell, but I think of it as a necessary evil.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Iran is not alone. If Bush launches another invasion, he could find himself at war with China and/or Russia.

The irony is that some European nations might actually support Bush, because they're justifiably afraid of waking up with a new nuclear power in their backyard.

[maplesyrup]

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US.  Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text

The US doesn't have to annex us, as we give them whatever they want. Countries hardly matter anymore; it is all done through the transnationals.

[MapleBear]

What I was asking is with regard to Iran, did people (analysts, reporters, governments, and people who hate Bush) claim that Iran was more of a threat when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction. Did people not say that. Did people not say we should be focusing on Iran because of their growing nuclear program.

So how is it that people are now saying Bush is doing it again when these are the same people that said Iran is more of a threat. This what I don't understand.

So now because we all hate BUsh are we going to ignore the fact that Iran is a threat or at least a possible one, and claim bush wants to exapnd his empire.

Just because Iran was and is MORE of a threat than Iraq doesn't mean it was or is a good idea to attack it. Now that Iran is apparently becoming a GREATER threat, it would seem that intervention would be more logical. But you have to consider many factors. For example, does Iran have a right to defend itself from a rogue superpower that has already launched an illegal war against its next door neighbor? And is Bush in any position to attack Iran when he's bogged down in Iraq and has few friends left??

[Argus]

It should be pretty obvious who is next on the US hit parade - it is going to be Iran.

I hope so. I hope someone does something about the mad mullahs and their nuclear ambitions.

Iran and Israel

[August1991]

There is a zero chance of an invasion of Iran.

There is a likelihood of a coup or "regime change" in Iran. The Americans will likely stay out of this but will be implicated somehow.

[Guest eureka]

I would agree with that, August. An invasion of Iran would be the end of America as a "superpower."

Not only is Iran three times the population of Iraq, it is more or les homogeneous in ethnicity and is one in its religious makeup.

Iraq would be a Sunday School picnic by comparison.

I think you are right that it is only a matter of time before Iran collapses of itself. But, if the US does invade, then it would respond with a real sense of repelling the Crusaders: it would respond as a united force.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Chloe,

My question is Iran no longer a threat?

The Bush administration and ergo the media will tell you Iran is an 'imminent threat' when they want/need you to think so. For now, Iraqi elections need to happen for the US to have any sort of legitimacy behind their actions.

[Tawasakm]

So now because we all hate BUsh are we going to ignore the fact that Iran is a threat or at least a possible one, and claim bush wants to exapnd his empire.

My question is Iran no longer a threat?

I don't know about anyone else here but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to read, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf' to George Bush. The problem he has created for himself in the event of any real and legitimate threat is that he has destroyed his credibility and he would have to work twice as hard just to convince many people that he is being honest.

Or to put it another way I think he may have harmed the ability of the government to respond to new legitimate threats and to disseminate information. The world will be even slower and more reluctant to aid him in a new venture - which could be a real problem if facing a real threat.

Theloniusfleabag is correct, I think, in stating the the government, and Bush, needs to re-establish credibility before being able to respond to any new situations effectively (if they are capable of that at all).

[Guest eureka]

I notice that you would want to "read it to him."

[Tawasakm]

I notice that you would want to "read it to him."

You could call it a freudian slip...

Although I guess the underlying belief could not rightly be called subconcious.

Ignoring his potential literacy problems (despite everything I am sure he can read) I would want to be there to explain the moral of the story to him a few times to be sure that he got it.

[maplesyrup]

I always have a good chuckle when I hear how these Bush proponents think they are on the right track with their policies. If they were not just bullies, and had any confidence in their positions why don't they allow freedom of the press in the US? And everybody by now must realize there is NOT freedom of the press any more in the US. /169

[chris29]

the united states will not invade iran, the purpose of iraq contrary to typical belief was not oil (although that was definitley beneficial) it is to pursue the so called pax american, similar to pax roma during the roman empire, the americans have since the end of the cold war lost there power in the eurasian region. This is and will prove to be in the future the most important region in the world. During the clinton administration he received a letter demanding that he attack iraq, lol of course this was before any even made up suspicion, they signatares on this letter were cheney and rumsfeldt, the actual arcitechts of the iraq war. These are individuals who not only benefited greatly from the pax america during the cold war but helped tremendously in the effectiveness of it (see cheney and his former think tank). If the us were to pick a nation to attack who would they go after. Well if they were going after north korea that could be potentially suicide, the terrain is similar to vietnam, very mountainous not to mention there is a large population and you have a psychopathic dictator with a nuke, well that would kinda ruin your day if he let that baby go. Second choice Iran, well iran to is a mountainous area, plus it is a country of roughly twice the population of iraq who strongly support there government, plus we know they still have wmd's so american forces would no doubt have to face these in iran. The last choice is Iraq, well iraq is flat. Not to mention it is a small country (30 million people) who for the most part do not support their leader. Plus we know they don't have wmd.

IMO if the united states were to undergo any new military action it would not be until iraq has restores its "freedom" and "sovereignty". I would expect somewhere in the south china sea to be the next area "liberated". The south China sea is the 3rd largest expected oil reserve in the world, after the persian gulf and the caspian sea and it is probably one of the least exploited. Also the united states would most certainly need some more support in the east eurasian area. Globalization has made this area on of the fastest growing regions in the world. This area has become crucial to the american economy and in all reality it would be a bad idea on their part not to gain some control in that region.