Watch Cheney's body language when he speaks of Iran. He drops his head and averts his eyes.
Posted by Nobody at January 14, 2007 08:23 PMI look for the psyops unit to stage some sort of cataclysmic event soon. It's too fitting a gambit to pass on in reminding the public terrorism lurks everywhere. Maybe stateside, although containing a domestic investigation is a bit risky. More likely a detonation at an "American interest" target, such as an overseas refinery, allied military installation or the downing of a European airliner. That'll get everyone in line long enough to finish the next two years of completing the police state.
Posted by steve duncan at January 14, 2007 08:33 PMIt was amusing to hear chickenhawk 2 spew from the mighty foxlitzer that the American people didn't have the guts to fight the war in Iraq, given the great lengths he went to avoid Viet Nam.
college, more college, still more college, even more college, finally got enough education to figure out how to knock up wife.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 14, 2007 08:33 PMWhen Cheney is decrying the lack of guts and whether the US "has the stomach", Cheney is lamenting that he does not have the political approval to kill a massive number or Iraqia and to nuke a massive number of Iranians so his oil company can pump all the oil it wants from the ME without having to pay for it.
The only way we can "win" in the ME is to engage in a biblical style massacre and total destruction of our opponent's people to clear out the territory for American dominence. It is the pesky locals that are in the way and the lack of stomach of the American people to do the job of killing that Cheney regrets.
The only way we can win is by committing genocide.
Posted by Nobody at January 14, 2007 08:45 PMNobody, I fear your assessment is exactly right. Too many warmongers have not seen enough blood and they are hungry for more. And their definition to "winning" is destroying the Other (innocent or not). They will continue to believe the army has its "hands tied" until they have killed all the enemy and salted the earth.
Posted by Mary at January 14, 2007 09:06 PM"The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around."
--Kenneth M. Pollack
Uh huh. Big time. Especially if Israel's second Lebanon disaster is our template to attack Iran. America's non-negotiable lifestyle will then end meanly.
Like Hizb'Allah, Iran can withstand US/Israeli attacks beyond our sustaining political will. It can also retaite abroad through state allies, sub-national militias and global energy disruption. Our Iraq occupation troops may repeat a desert Chosin Reservoir while we deal with China's margin call, $200+/barrel oil and other unforeseeable adversities.
Goodbye easy credit, happy motoring, big box, suburban asteroid belt.
Ken's so smart. I can see why they're paying him an extra $1.25/hour. He's worth every cent.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 14, 2007 09:14 PMTh rnn gvrnmnt wnts cnfrnttn, th S ds nt. ccrdng t th lft's cnfsn, prprng fr th vntlty s crm. Fls....
[Editor: ignore=off]The administration is twisting the truth about Iraq with oversimplification and cherry picking facts. Read the McCatchy Washington Bureau article by Mark Seibel. www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington
Posted by Ceee at January 15, 2007 01:53 AM"It was amusing to hear chickenhawk 2 spew from the mighty foxlitzer that the American people didn't have the guts to fight the war in Iraq, given the great lengths he went to avoid Viet Nam."
TIKI AL, what a great point. What Cheney means is that we don't have the stomach for death and destruction.
Posted by Judith at January 15, 2007 05:38 AMI also noticed the timing in Sanger's article. He says Bush issued orders during the last 3 weeks to open the Iranian front. 3 weeks just about dovetails with Cheney's trip over to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by mainsailset at January 15, 2007 06:47 AMSgt. Keepout, "$200+/barrel oil and other unforeseeable adversities.'
$200+ barrel oil is simply an urban legend promulgated by Bush&Co and the Good ol oil Buddies to keep us afraid. Oil is really so abundant that the supply has to be seriously suppressed. Suppression of oil supply is the primary purpose of the Iraqi war and the threats agains Iran. If their oil were on the market, oil would be really cheap. Now, even with the ME supply suppressed, OPEC is finding that the surfeit of oil is bringing prices down and they are seriously restricting supply. When oil goes above about $70.00 per barrel, alternative sources such as the oil sands in Canada controlled by the Chinese become quite economic as a supply source. Old wells and small output wells that remain unused become profitable again. Marginally profitable deep-sea wells become profitable. There is an abundant supply of oil that is very price sensitive. OPEC and the Good ol Oil Buddies must keep the price just below the price that makes the oil sands and other sources profitable if they are to maintain control of the market.
It is the overabundance of oil, not its shortage that is the driving force in the Middle East. So stop being afraid of $200+ per barrel oil--it won't happen because the alternative supplies become quite economic at about $70.00 per barrel which caps the upward supply/demand equalization point even if all of the ME oil, including Saudi Arabia were stopped. Hugo Chavez would have a field day if it were.
Iran is a gathering threat that must be confronted, the sooner the better. Actually the current moment is close to optimal: Iran's supreme leader is rumored to be dying or even already dead. The recent Iranian elections have delivered a sharp rebuke to the current regime. A decisive push now will bring the rotten mullocracy tumbling down and bring a much more pro-American government to power. [It should be pointed out that polls taken in 2004 showed that Iranians preferred Bush over Kerry by the widest margin of any country in the world, including the US.]
Got to cordially disagree, nobody. Iraq's oil was essentially off the market under Saddam as a result of the sanctions. If BigOil didn't want Saddam's oil on the market, there was no reason to invade. And the Saudis have been (vainly) threatening to increase their production, not supress it, in order to reduce Iran's petro-dollars.
Iraq was invaded so that American and British petroleum could get access to the enormous, largely unexploited reserves of Iraq. Under Saddam's regime, they were permanently cut out---can't have that, right, Dick?
I don't know about Keepout's $200 figure, but my understanding is that the isn't a lot of flexibility in the world oil supply: a loss of even Iran's 4% would have an enormous effect on world prices. Not much play in the system makes small fluctuations have big price effects, certainly in the short term.
Given the enormous, ever increasing level of the world's demand, oil is a very finite resource whose price is going to go up over time, oil sands or not, small wells or not.
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2007 07:52 AMMoosebrain---too much time at the right-wing internet shit troughs for you. We'll be greeted as liberators!!---how many times can you be a fool?
You sound like Hitler crowing about how the Soviet Union was a rotten, ramshackle structure that only needed to have its door kicked in and it would collapse. You might want to read a bit about the Russian front in WWII. And human psychology.
Beter yet, try reading an actual book about Iran, and not your daily dose of idiotic Powerline and Redstate Freeper nonsense. Sheesh, talk about armchair militarism!
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2007 07:58 AMRevenge Part I, The Afghanistan Edition
Revenge Part II, The Iraq Edition
And coming to a war theatre near you:
Revenge Part III, The Iran Edition
Yea, that hostage thingy Iran pulled on Carter is well worth another endless war with 10 dead Americans, 25 wounded, and millions of dollars per day to finally relegate us to the Roman Empire historical scrap-heap.
"Revenge Trilogy" available soon from Time\Life Books.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 15, 2007 08:05 AM"If BigOil didn't want Saddam's oil on the market, there was no reason to invade.
Iraq was invaded so that American and British petroleum could get access to the enormous, largely unexploited reserves of Iraq.
Big Oil wants it both ways--supplies limited and control over unexploited reserves. The key word is control. Under the present circumstances, Big Oil has control over a shrinking portion of the world supply and wants to keep prices up to maximize the profits of its reserves as it uses them up. It also wants to obtain new replacement reserves as cheaply as possible. By invading, the supply in the near term is suppressed and there is a possibility of gaining reserves at the expense of American taxpayers.
While short-term disruptions in supply may cause spikes in the near-term (1 to 3 years), the supply of energy, including oil, coal, solar, biofuel, and conservation is fairly flexible. Thus, there is really a price range within which oil must remain within to keep oil as the dominant source of energy. Since oil is so convenient, as long as the prices are kept within that range, alternatives simply are never adopted or developed because they are more expensive and less convenient than oil. Thus, as long as Big Oil maintains control over the whole supply chain and keeps the price at the optimum level--the price that is just below the price that would encourage adoption of the alternatives, Big Oil can prosper. If the price increases too much on a permanent basis, then alternatives to oil become viable and will be adopted lessening the demand for oil and the power of Big Oil.
Right now, it seems that the tipping price is around $70 - $80 dollars a barrel. Above that price, the alternative energy sources will start to become viable. Big Oil cannot risk permanent adoption of alternative energy sources.
Posted by at January 15, 2007 08:36 AMA decisive push now will bring the rotten mullocracy tumbling down and bring a much more pro-American government to power.
A push right now will bring Saddam down and the people will welcome in the street with flowers and democracy will bloom.
Sound familiar?
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2007 08:47 AMBig Oil cannot risk permanent adoption of alternative energy sources.
It likely has nothing to do with oil. It likely has everything to do with Iran boursing oil in Euros. Under republi-con leadership, the Euro is now the currency of choice in the world, surpassing the dollar. It should be pointed out that Iraq boursed their oil in the Euro and then we "invaded" under the guise of WMDs, etc.
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2007 09:00 AMNobody @ 07:08 AM,
euzoius @ 07:52 AM,
anon @ 08:36 AM,
You comments are well taken. None of us knows the future and expectations are contingent on personal animal spirits as much as which facts to weight. I myself am personally pessimistic about supply, noting the US stock peaked about 35 years ago, never to recover. It's difficult to see an alternative scenario when extrapolating globally. A bottomless font of pessimistic refreshment can be found here:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary20.html
Regardless of oil's viability, it's a filthy fuel we'd all benefit from leaving in the ground.
Irrespective of our individual oil expectations, I believe we can agree it's only one of a constellation of potential afflictions that will attend our nation's aggression against Iran following the Israeli '06 Lebanon fiasco template. Or any other, for that matter.
Regards...
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 15, 2007 09:05 AMChina National Petroleum has just (1/14/07) signed an agreement with Iran to develop Iran's South Pars gas block for 3.6 billion USD - 1.8 billion USD for exploration and 1.8 billion USD for an LNG plant, and has signed a preliminary 25 year agreement for the purchase of 3 million tonnes per annum of LNG - see http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/01/14/afx3327819.html.
Iran is also a signatory to the Shanghai Cooperative Association - a trade agreement among China,Russia,Uzbekistan and others, with India, Pakistan and Iran having observer status, and with various mutual security clauses.
This "sabre rattling" will involve more than the mid-East and the US.
Posted by IM at January 15, 2007 06:05 PM