August 05, 2005

• We're already in WWIII, if you ask me.
• Maybe this is their way of celebrating the 60th anniversary of their last set of nuclear attacks.
• Sounds like disinformation, I don't think the Rethugs would last long even in Amerikkka right now if they started dropping nukes. There would be fucking civil war.
• Ah. Everytime Bush goes on vacation, things get interesting... There would be fucking civil war. I really don't know about that.
• My feeling of late is that the world is heading in a downward spiral One could argue that's just another illusion: history didn't end, these aren't the 'end times' or a special stage of transition. Empires, conquests, long-range plans have never stopped. Some powers fall; others struggle for the spoils. We may feel that there was a 'truce' in the last half of the past century, and even that's not real; just ask all the victims of civil wars and massacres in eastern europe, africa, south america. The wheels have never stopped turning.
• And every time this sort of thing comes up, we need to be reminded that there are all sorts of plans on file in the back-rooms of the Pentagon. One of their jobs is to think up what to do in all sorts of contingencies. I'm sure there is a plan on what targets to hit with nukes in Canada should an invasion of the U.S. by Moose happen.
• Some things to consider. This is an initial report, with a single source (the Giraldi guy). We've seen scads of bogus initial reports with respect to the whole GWOT, so as for me, I'm wait and see. Lyndon LaRouche is involved in the story's promotion, and he is arguably a raving nutjob, with a cult following of raving nutjobs. It's also arguably not a "nuclear attack", as it mentions tactical, not strategic nukes. In other words, they'd likely be using tactical nukes (bunker busters) against hardened targets that would resist conventional weapons, not big strategic nukes against population centers. So it doesn't sound like they are planning a Hiroshima here. All that aside, the media ought to be looking into this and giving us the real story. also discussed on Mefi, and Juan Cole's opinion on this story.
• Aw, christ, splitting hairs over tactical vs strategic is just bullshit. Nukes are a fucking no-no, period. Tacticals have never been used in the theatre of war, AFAIK. There are non-nuke bunker busters.
• "the media ought to be looking into this and giving us the real story." Yeah, good luck waitin' on that.
• Aw, christ, splitting hairs over tactical vs strategic is just bullshit. I don't think so. "Nuclear attack" is a loaded term that makes people think of events like Hiroshima. Tactical nukes are an order(s) of magnitude smaller than strategic nukes. I do think it's a batshit crazy plan. But I just think it's a little bit playing to the old emotions to call this plan a "nuclear attack".
• the military has contingency plans for many unlikely situations. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. the media ought not to be looking into something that any sensible miltary does, under any leader, as a matter of course. *YAWN*
• We're only going to nuke them a little bit. Come on, it's not like we're going to nuke the living shit out of them; it's like we're going to little nuke the living shit out of them.
• the military has contingency plans for many unlikely situations. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. the media ought not to be looking into something that any sensible miltary does, under any leader, as a matter of course. *YAWN*
• Um, who the hell is "Official Wire?" The appear to be presenting themselves as a liberal site, but they use the same "Hitler in the bunker" screed as LaRoushe does. (Didn't spend a lot of time there, so corrections are in order.) And, the Washington Post article appears to be op/ed, not straight reporting, plus they don't attribute anything to Cheney. So, yeah, military strategists strategize, as we found out in the Blame Canada thread. The presention of links in this post seems a bit tollish to me.
• YEs, but we do have to watch them Canadians. Sneaky buggers.
• The presention of links in this post seems a bit tollish to me. I assume you meant to say trollish? And what may I ask is wrong with some genuine discussion on the topics I posted? I was curious what others thought... my curiousity got the better of me. As I said above, I'm not stating any postions. I specifically used italics because it was the title of one of the linked articles. I don't necessarily agree with them at all. I've come across quite a lot of discussion on these subjects in the past week, which led me to this post. I'm not here to say "Official Wire is a trust-worthy source!" I thought it might be for some thought-provoking dialogue. Thanks for your input, although it wasn't quite what I was hoping for.
• I think path meant "tollish." As in, "For Whom the Bell Tolls." With tactical nukes being dropped in preventative warfare, I think that the bell indeed tolls for thee.
• Um, who the hell is "Official Wire?" Right question! It's yet another BAOU TRUST / Greg Lloyd Smith (longtime web crank) production.
• the media ought not to be looking into something that any sensible miltary does, under any leader, as a matter of course. Said one lemming to the other, "Do you hear the ocean?"
• I wouldn't put anything past fuckin' Dick "welcome us in the streets" cunty fuckin' Cheney. Guy's a goddamn war criminal, war profiteer, and a hell of a lot of 'web crank' shit before the Iraq debacle turned out to be dead right. Iraqnam quagmire etc. My opinion is this has been deliberately leaked as disinfo, scare the ragheads, etc.
• OfficialWire brings you pearls of insight such as this. Part of their diversity in journalism mission, I s'pose.
• Yes, but we do have to watch them Canadians. Sneaky buggers. Ha, Ha. What you say? *signals beaver squadron to begin cross-border attack under cover of nightfall*
• Seriously though, in answer to the post, even if they really did nuke Iran, it wouldn't be WWIII. You need Russia and China at least to get actively involved before we would have something you would call a world war. Looking for world war? This is a better prospect.
• Goetter, I've never heard of this Greg Lloyd Smith chap before. Who is he? what has he done in the past?
• Greg Lloyd Smith?
• Well, online he's been accused of abuse of trademark, violating customer's privacy, operating front organizations for terrorists, domain squatting... and what un- said. Yeah.
• "You need Russia and China at least to get actively involved before we would have something you would call a world war." Russia is buddies with Iran, the nuclear fuel agreement, is in trade with them on it and they have given Iran the Sunburn cruise missile, the most powerful missile on earth, the supersonic carrier-killer. China is also heavily involved in the region and has deep interest in securing oil trade agreements with middle eastern powers. Some speculate that the US move on Iraq was part of a long game to head-off China, a rapidly progressing military power now, from getting leeway in the region. Russia and China won't be happy if the US makes some kind of unheard of aggression against another soveriegn nation in the region, not only over concerns about resource supply but concern about their future status. Chess moves in the gulf. Both powers have been making moves there during this time, I'm not surprised this has not been mentioned in the US media as no missing white women are involved.
• sugarmilktea - look, I've liked your posts/comments in general, but links to a couple of suspicious sites and an op/ed article do seem like a post intended to cause ranting, and, if we were more diverse, flame wars. Sorry if I misread your intent, but that's my opinion.
• >abuse of trademark, violating customer's privacy, Still sounds like a nicer guy than Cheney. And as all X-Files fans know, part of any good governmental misinformation plan is making sure that leaked information comes out through crackpot sources, so that no one will believe it. In other words, just because you're paranoid... This may well be a bunch of malarkey- but I wish I thought, upon hearing something like this, 'I know My Government would never do that'.
• In addition to cybersquatting: running sketchy freemail sites, redirecting squatted domains to his own adult website ("baldpussyclub" - no shit), trademarking his own name in an attempt to remove mentions of his name from mailing list archives, and generally being an obnoxious, litigious son of a bitch. Googling for the medusa that is BAOU TRUST (his wife's family trust, based in Greece - they own a hotel on Mykonos) will get you the rest. All heavily cross-promoted on OfficialWire, which can't decide if it's a progressive blog or a PR firm.
• I wouldn't join any bald pussy club that would have me as a member.
• drjimmy11 - well, that's admirable since I cats hate to be shaved.
• "think".
• George Costanza's in that club.
• We're already in WWIII, if you ask me. Yes. Kind of like the "twilight war" that preceded WWII.
• links to a couple of suspicious sites and an op/ed article do seem like a post intended to cause ranting, and, if we were more diverse, flame wars path, I don't think there's any point in me trying to convince you to the contrary; let my "record" speak for itself. I'm not here to incite flame wars or promote mad ranting. Everything I do is with good intent - which tends to get the better of me on many occasions *sigh* I try to keep my posts varied, and perhaps this one was not constructed so well - but please don't accuse me of trolling unless you have good cause to do so.
• Not really accusing, smt, it just seemed out of character and I was trying to figure out where you were coming from.
• In addition to cybersquatting: running sketchy freemail sites, redirecting squatted domains to his own adult website ("baldpussyclub" - no shit), trademarking his own name in an attempt to remove mentions of his name from mailing list archives, and generally being an obnoxious, litigious son of a bitch. Wow, that's freaky stuff!
• Let's just say that I'm privy to information on a daily basis that literally only a few eyes in this world have seen, and recently there has been some talk among colleagues on the said subjects. My curiousity was perked. Still, I am human and ignorant of many things. I get home and have zero time to pay attention to world matters - - I'm too busy changing baby diapers (aah, the smell)! Hell, I don't know flapdoodle about Greg Lloyd Smith or Mr. raving nutjob LaRouche. So, there's the reason for my posting of the links I did.
• Russia and China won't be happy if the US makes some kind of unheard of aggression against another soveriegn nation in the region, not only over concerns about resource supply but concern about their future status. I agree they wouldn't be happy (although Russia certainly would benefit from the spike in oil prices) but still it's unlikely they would step up to the plate. They didn't step up after Afghanistan, and they didn't step up after Iraq. Iran wouldn't be any different. Things would be different if say Russia and China started signing mutual defence pacts with Middle Eastern countries. But regardless, a nuclear strike against Iran? Unlikely. I think the hotspot which has bigger geopolitical implications is Pakistan. The fundamentalist mullahs of Iran are pikers compared to the madrassa-educated fanatics that Musharraf has to deal with. Scenario: Bin-Ladenists execute a coup in Pakistan and get their hands on the nuclear arsenal. Terrorists set sail in small boats equipped with nuclear warheads for New York, Boston, San Francisco, LA. India launches pre-emptive nuclear strike at major Pakistani defence installations and perhaps cities....welcome to the 21st century holocaust.
• I dunno about everyone else but for me learning about Larouche was one good thing that came from your post.
• "still it's unlikely they would step up to the plate." USA makes any more aggressive moves into central Asia and watch how quick China and Russia step up to the plate. They won't take on the US directly: they won't have to (not when Iran already has the Sunburn - that fleet sitting in the Gulf will be vaporised unless the US can nuke the launch platforms quick sharp). They'll just move into the areas they want while the US military is all tied up. It would be assinine to assume China & Russia will sit on their hands while America tries to fight a war on 3 fronts, but Cheney & Co. are just stupid enough to think it. Then it will be time to start learning Mandarin.
• They won't take on the US directly We agree on that. That's why it's unlikely a world war would develop from an Iranian attack. They'll just move into the areas they want while the US military is all tied up. The Russians have areas of interest to move into (the 'Stans mostly) but I'm not sure about China. But then again Russian military capabilities in the short term are questionable. America tries to fight a war on 3 fronts, but Cheney & Co. are just stupid enough to think it. . Are they? I'd be willing to bet solid money, there's no nuclear attack on Iran in the next five years. Then it will be time to start learning Mandarin. The upside? At last being able to find those good Chinese restaurants in Toronto... :-)
• Ah. Everytime Bush goes on vacation, things get interesting... He's always on fucking vacation.
• "The Russians have areas of interest to move into... I'm not sure about China." How about Taiwan? For starters? To me, after the Cold War, 'world wars' don't necessarily involve conventional battles. They can be based around stand offs, economic battles, strategic movements. Lives aren't necessarily wiped out in instants, but maps change and lives change. What is a war? Conventional war ended a long time ago. I don't think anything crazy will happen. I hope it won't. But the potential is there, does anyone trust Bush & Cheney to make sensible decisions and not rash illogical ones? Based on their record so far? Would you have believed any of the shit that has gone on since 2001 if someone had predicted it in 1999? I think such a prophet would've been labelled the Tinfoil Mad Hatter. Tea, anyone?
• >*signals beaver squadron to begin cross-border attack under cover of nightfall* I, for one, welcome our new beaver overlords.
• You will be rewarded for your loyalties, Mord. You are now Mord of Morgoth, and we grant ye new title: Lord of the States of Vermont and Maine. Your hit points are also increased by a substantial amount. All ye other Americans capitulate! Time is short!
• >*signals beaver squadron to begin cross-border attack under cover of nightfall* *loads poutine and geoduck catapults, dons Maple Leaf unitard, cracks open a cold Moosehead*
• Give Iranian Nukes a Chance Intersting read via In These Times
• *watches bits of tinfoil start to flake off*
• Where the hell are the beavers when you need 'em?? Weather outlook: tinfoil flurries
• *wonders how far-fetched this post will read in a year*
• "Lieutenant, I hope you like spring rolls." "Yes sir. I just hope they don't make me eat any of that damn tofu."