Osama's Message to America!

[AgingYoung]

Good point, Dave. I think that it should be mandatory that Americans know where the Middle East is. I don't think that Americans should have to forfeit their right to an opinion about people that want to kill them just because they don't know where those murders come from. Maybe you should be able to point out where the middle east is before you get a drivers license or make an alcohol or cigarette purchase. Something like that should work. Or before they do the background check on you to own a gun they could make you demonstrate you know where the middle east is.

That would be very valuable education for Americans. That way in the future when we hear of nukes going off in the middle east we'll know where it's happening.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

It's starting to look like the greatest threat to Middle East peace is the nation of Iran. Anybody who has studied its history will realize that it is a revolutionary and apocholyptic society that is the source of much of the tensions now building in the region.

Sooner or later, the US government and its military are going to decide that it is time to take on this renegade nation and then we're talking about a conflagration that will make the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq look like a cake walk by comparison.

Iran has four times the population of Iraq, a standing army of about 800,000 troops, and maintains several million suicide fighters in reserve. They are, no doubt, also very busily at work trying to get their first battlefield ready nuclear weapons, so, if the West is going to take them on, it will have to be a soon as possible.

Already, their refusal to comply with the United Nations nuclear inspectors is bringing their case up before the UN's Security Council. I expect that there will be talk of sanctions and such, but, in the end, the US will have to prepare for a massive bombing campaign followed by a very bloody manned invasion of their country.

When will it happen? My best guess is by early next year...probably around April or March before the temperatures start to climb.

The US has already lost about 2,500 in its ongoing war against terrorism. Expect that number to increase by a factor of 10 when the war against Iran starts up...


ken

[AgingYoung]

The US has already lost about 2,500 in its ongoing war against terrorism. Expect that number to increase by a factor of 10 when the war against Iran starts up...

Before the iraqi war people (the democrats mostly) were saying that the casualties were going to be massive. DOD ordered 70K body bags to handle that. All those casualties never happened.

Iran is run by an old guard but there are a lot of younger voices that want a less conservative government. They've traveled around the world and have the idea of freedom. There's nothing more powerful than idea who's time has come and I think the idea of freedom could make a significant difference to the younger Iranian population. I hope so.

Gene

[SeaWasp]

Gene, I agree that the idea of freedom would make a possitive impression on young Iranians. But, realistically, the radical elements that have power over them, impart a "peer group pressure" mentality which holds them loyal to their radical beliefs. It's either your with us or against us. And there isn't much comfort if your against them! You wouldn't last very long!

I suppose the US has adopted the same strategy in it's concerns on dealing with radical Muslim elements!

Ralph.. If only there were more voices like that womans in the world!
Such a pity it largely falls on deaf ears! She would most probably end up being buried to her neck and stoned to death for such heresy! She does make some very powerful statements regarding Muslim views on Christianity!

Spiros.

[ken_behrendt]

This whole issue of Iran developing nuclear power technology that can be diverted into nuclear weapons is a powder keg waiting to blow up.

Yes, many of the younger Iranians are "pro-West" in terms of envying the freedom of expression and entertainment enjoyed in the West. But, I think as soon as the bombs start being dropped in an effort to destroy those underground nuclear research facilities, the average Iranian, young or old, is going to perceive it as an attack upon the nation of Iran and the religion of Islam and not just as an attempt to pre-empt more unrest in the Middle East. At that point the Imans and Mullahs will denounce all things western and the whole country will probably declare war on the USA.

If that happens, then we'll really have a problem. To get revenge after our attack, the Iranian government may even give some nukes to Al-Qaeda to use on the West.

IF we decide to attack Iran, then we will literally have a tiger by the tail. Nothing short of a complete victory will be acceptable in order to safeguard western countries that partake in the invasion. That complete victory will probably be one of the bloodiest that the USA has ever engaged in. Just thinking of what could happen is enough to make me break out in a cold sweat!

I'm hoping that the recent escalating tension over Iran's refusal to cooperate with international pressure to stop all uranium enrichment will just somehow resolve itself. Unfortunately, that same wishful thinking was in vogue just prior to the Iraq invasion and look where we are now!


ken

[SeaWasp]

The biggest problem with the U.S attacking Iran, is that it will be starting a new war front not only in Iran, but perhaps with many other Muslim nations. If the US spreads itself out too thin on many war fronts, it will be looking for major trouble.

I don't really see the US jumping in with the same fervour as with Iraq. The country just cannot afford to start another major offensive. The more troops and firepower it expends out of the country, the less it will have to defend from within. I would imagine perhaps more of a "worldy contribution" from concerned countries.

Add to that the added influx of potential suicide bombers or worse still, "nuclear bombers", then national security will start to really feel the strain!

Considering that they can now have and can produce a nuclear device the size of a briefcase, then it wouldn't be too hard to see how easy it would be for nuclear bombers to smuggle in small parts at a time and then reassemble them and target a major US city! Now that would be scary! Unless the attempt can be thwarted beforehand, the US will just not be able to pinpoint a retaliatory strike. The US would be caught with her pants down.

I hope to God this doesn't happen, but with an escalating trend towards nuclear technology, it seems to me that it will only be a matter of time before something does happen.

Spiros.

[ken_behrendt]

Spiros wrote:

I don't really see the US jumping in with the same fervour as with Iraq. The country just cannot afford to start another major offensive.

That's a good point, but the costs of war never seem to be a deterent to the Western powers.

When the Bush administration first got us involved with Iraq three years ago, the American people were told that it would only cost, at most, about $60 billion USD. There was one guy in their administration who, in an unguarded moment, told a reporter that the actual cost might be $150 billion USD. He, coincidentally, was "let go" a few months later during a "reorganization" of this department.

Currently, the cost is up around $400 billion USD and there does not appear to be any end in sight. I recently heard about a high power economist that has calculated the total final cost of the Iraq War will be somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion USD! Since there are about 100 million families in the USA at the moment, that means this war will, in the long run, cost each of them between $10,000 and $20,000 USD! That's a lot of money to be taking out of people's lives for a war that was based on a "mistake". I think I read/heard somewhere that even Bush's father was opposed to the war as were most of the generals who would have to fight it.

If we do wind up invading Iran next year, then God only knows what the finally bill for the American family will be.

I think Osama's plan to bankrupt the Western powers is proceeding nicely on schedule...


ken

[scott]

I think Osama's plan to bankrupt the Western powers is proceeding nicely on schedule...

Good point Ken. Osama has apparently read quite a few more history books than our own politicians have.

We're already bankrupt: http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Media/PR010606

On the bright side though, at least every empire eventually ends in bankruptcy.

http://haloboylekwtn.blogspot.com/2005/ ... mpire.html

[trevie]

We're already bankrupt: http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Media/PR010606

I wonder what the interest would be on that amount $8.18 Trillion; and how much its costing extra to have this sort of dept, How would they pay it back? Governments who do not control there spending should have their wages and pensions deducted and also be black listed personally to help pay for their negligence. They need to set up two budgets, one to keep the country running and the other to pay back what they owe.

The other thing, whats the point of setting a limit if they are just going to keep raising the limit, which is now set at $9 trillion. why not make it $20Trillion and be done with it til the next time.

[ken_behrendt]

trevie...

Actually, a government can make their borrowing limit just as high as they please. All that is necessary is to "justify" it by claiming that it will only represent an ever shrinking percentage of a growing GDP. It's a soothing message, but it assumes that the GDP will actually keep growing. I think that the USA will be in for a rude awakening in the next five years or so.

Prediction: The Republican Party in the USA is now poised for the biggest loss of political power since its formation in the 19th century. This will begin to manifest itself during the mid-term elections this fall...


ken

[ken_behrendt]

Bush gave a press conference yesterday during which he made an interesting little "slip". When asked by a reporter when he intended to withdraw the US's military forces from Iraq, he said that was something for a "future" President to decide! Well, Bush will remain President of the USA until 2008 so that means, I suppose, that we will have to continue the "war" against terrorism there for another almost 3 years! That should then double the present cost (about $400 billion USD) and the current number of dead (about 2500).

Keep your eyes on this year's mid-term congressional elections. I'm predicting a major defeat and loss of power for the Republican Party. Then, just as soon as the Democrats are in control of both houses again, we may see our involvement in Iraq suddenly shortened as the funding for it is stopped.


ken

[scott]

What makes you think the the Democrats have any intention of leaving Iraq? As far as I can tell they are just as tribalistic and bellicose (if not more so) than the Republicans. In fact I think the Democrats are probably more likely to get us involved in a war with Iran at this point than the Republicans would be.

[ken_behrendt]

Scott...

The Democratic Party has been out of majority power in both Houses of the US Congress for some time now and they do not like it one bit.

They are desperately seeking some issue that they can use to distinquish themselves from the Republicans and this whole trend of the growing desire on the part of the American public to disengage from the Middle East would seem perfect.

There is a slowly growing under current of isolationalism in the US that is getting worse with each CNN story about terrorist attacks, hostage executions, and jobs lost to over seas manufacturers. I think once the Democrats get back into power again, they are going to want to stay in power and that will mean bringing the USA back to where it was before things like globalization, deficit federal financing, etc. messed this country up and has resulted in an ongoing collapse of our industrial base and the shrinkage of the middle class.

I think that the only thing which is now delaying our withdraw from Iraq is the fact that we do not yet have a draft which would have produced a far louder anti-war movement than now exists. However, that situation could change drastically if a decision is made to invade Iran. I suspect that decision has already been made and will be implemented next year in the event that the Russians can not successfully halt the Iranian nuclear power program.

Big changes are in the wind...


ken

[AgingYoung]

I suspect that decision has already been made and will be implemented next year in the event that the Russians can not successfully halt the Iranian nuclear power program.

The former soviets have been assisting in iranian nuclear program; why would they want to stop it?

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Gene...

I think that if push comes to shove that the Russians will prefer to side with the Western powers and not with Iran. Russia can potentially make much more money by trade with the West than with Iran.

I've been watching a lot of cable news channels and trying to keep abreast of the latest news about the Russian effort to pull the plug on the Iranian nuclear power program. So far, it is apparent that the Iranians are resolutely determined to continue with their program even if it violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a very serious matter. Yes, they claim that they will only be using their home based uranium enrichment research to produce fuel for civilian reactors. However, with nuclear weapons already in India, Pakistan, and Israel, it would seem certain that their real goal is the acquisition of such weapons to help them maintain parity with these potential future threats.

Ordinarily, I think most people would have no objections to any country developing its nuclear industry for civilian power generation. Although I am not a fan of nuclear power generation, the fact remains that it may help buy the world some time as it seeks to move away from fossil fuel power generation toward something less toxic like solar power.

However, when a nation that has an unstable government acquires these weapons, there is no telling how many of them may become "loss" or unaccounted for and possibly fall into the hands of fanatical, suicidal terrorists. This is a real danger with countries like Iran and I'm about 100% sure that the Western powers will never allow it to occur. The question is how to prevent it without having to actually invade the country and risk enormous casualties on both sides.

No doubt, the possible answers to these questions are keeping the lights on late into the night over at our Pentagon...



ken