digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at europebusines.blogspot.com

Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran

europebusines.blogspot.com — The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -4/+90All that, and yet, we can't keep illegal aliens out of our own country....

    This war is not in the US Citizens' interests.
    • caferrell, on 08/08/2008, -1/+40When was there a war that was in our interests? (1846, although it was unjust and immoral)
      • GonePostal77, on 08/08/2008, -17/+2The Revolutionary War, Civil War and WWII were all in our best interests, the Civil War being almost more important than the Revolution.
      • caferrell, on 08/08/2008, -3/+26I have to disagree with with two out of three GonePostal77.

        The Revolutionary Ar was definitiely in the best interest of Americans. We achieved freedom and independence and embarked on lives full of promise and prosperity. The cost in lives and destruction was minimal.

        The Civil War killed 650,000 Americans and destroyed the south. It took 100 years for the south to rebuild and raise its head again. The freeing of the slaves was not the reason that Lincoln declared war on his compatriots, the war was initiated to show that the Federal government could force the States to do what they had decided against. Slavery became an issue only because Lincoln wanted to keep Missouri out of the Union as it was aligned with the South. The Northern States used Lincoln to force the South to use American (northern) shipping, forced them to buy American (northern) industrial products. The war started at Ft. Sumter because the Federal Army and Navy was blockading the harbor to not let foreign flag ships carry American products.
        More than a year AFTER the war started, Lincoln freed the slaves, but ONLY in the south in order to create confusion and insurrection. Complete enfranchisement of the slaves was never Lincoln's goal.
        If freeing the slaves had been the goal, it would have been handled like it had been in England. Taxes were raised and the government purchased all the slaves at fair market prices and freed them. End of story.
        So the Civil War was important? Was it important to kill 650,000 innocent American men and boys when slavery could have been ended peacefully? The whole point of the war was to prove the primacy of the Fedral government and we are less free thanks to that ***** war.

        WWII was necessary becuase of WWI. If we had not involved ourselves in WWI and if we had not squeezed Japan into a corner by denying it access to oil and other raw materials, there would have been no WWII. Our interventionism tipped the scales creating WWII as well as all the current problems in the MidEast

        Take your warmongering elsewhere buddy.
      • sphira, on 08/08/2008, -1/+19good post
        caferrell

        I agree 100%

        The Civil War also gave birth to the Federal colossal we have strangling us today -
      • MarkEarhart, on 08/08/2008, -0/+19Thank you caferrell!!! It is nice to know that someone else has a clue what the civil war was really about. While the Union was fighting the Confederacy, they had children chained to sewing machines making those pretty blue Union uniforms. I am opposed to slavery anywhere, and believe that everyone should be treated equally, and judged by their individual character rather than their ethnic group, but the idea that Lincoln or the majority of the Union cared anything about the slaves here in the South is erroneous. Lincoln was quoted as saying that if he could win the war without freeing the slaves he would do so (paraphrase due to lack to time to look up actual quote). Sure there were abolitionists, but they were very much the minority.

        Unfortunately this is still being used by some as a divisive issue to this day while we need unity now more than ever in history.
      • GonePostal77, on 08/08/2008, -11/+2Nice revisionist history on the Civil War there buddy. Yes, Lincoln did not set out to free the slaves, and did not WANT war. But looking at Lincoln's thoughts as the war went on, he clearly knew that as horrible as the war was, and it was horrible, it was the only way to end the hideous practice of slavery. Read Lincoln's second inaugural address. The irony is, of course, that because of his assassination by Booth, reconstruction took forever. Lincoln wanted to put things right quickly and not get into recrimination. Instead, he's killed by a racist moron and the South got screwed again.

        You can debate up and down whether the South had a right to secede, but seeing as the reason they wanted to was to keep their slaves. It was. All of the arguments boil down to the South wanting to keep slavery legal. It's nice to imagine that "States Rights" was the real motivation, but Slavery was the root of the whole thing. The was had to be fought. Southern slave owners were not going to give up their "property" easily. The idea that they would have manumitted the slaves and everything would have been gravy without a war is foolish and naive. I'm more willing to blame the South for the growth of the federal government because they forced to war that led to that growth. Read a real book on the war and see for yourself.

        Edit: As to WWII, despite it's cause, it was in our national interest to get involved. Sure, Europe screwed the pooch with the Treaty of Versailles which pretty much made Hitler's rise possible, and Wilson's plan was no better, but we had a compelling interest to fight that war. Most wars aren't necessary. Those three were. Anything else on it is desperate revisionism, especially in regards to the Civil War.
      • caferrell, on 08/08/2008, -0/+15GonePostal77, in relation to the justification for war you are apparently of the school of George Dubya Bush. Dubya launched a war against Iraq justified by the certain existence of WMDs and a certain connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Upon toppling the government, the people that tell Dubya what is happening informed him that no, there were no WMDs, nor was the falsified evidence indicating a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda going to stand up to public scrutiny. "Don't matter, now the reason we're in this war is regime change, to uh uh give the Iraqi peoples their freedomsh"
        So he justifies a war by its outcome and not by the reason it was entered into. You are doing the exact same thing, and saying that the war was necessary.

        In a manner like unto Dubya's you are certain that the Civil War was just and the right thing to do because you like the outcome, although the war started absolutely because of States Rights with no connection whatsoever with slavery. Firing on Fort Sumter had nothing to do with slaves, on either side. It was about States Rights. South Carolina insisted that they had the right to ship cotton in any vessel that they cared to, and the Union Navy, under orders from Mr. Lincoln closed the Port. An embargo is an act of war and South Carolina responded militarily. Lincoln insisted that the southern states had no right to secede, although he had no legal basis to say so. Upon his order war was entered between Americans and 2% of the population of the country died in the ensuing battles. Only in order to confound the southern enemy did Lincoln produce the Emancipation Declaration. The Declaration created a shock at the end of the war that no-one was prepared for. It did not provide a smooth transition to freedom for black people. You think it was a good war.
        Therefore you are saying that a war can be just and good if it is started for erroneous reasons and discovers its real motive after the bullets start to fly. That is the justification for the war in Iraq.
        If we can accept that a war becomes worthwhile after it begins by finding a new purpose, then we have given the politicians carte blanche to start wars anywhere for any reason.

        The slaves would have been freed anyway. There were movements within the South and pressure from abroad that threatened to boycott American products, in particular cotton that would have made it untenable to continue the institution of slavery for much longer. A gradual freeing of the slaves would have created a more healthy environment for all involved.

        And by the way, why don't you read some history that isn't revisionist? Read what was written in the 1860s and 1870s. Read the newspapers and the opinions. Nobody thought that the war was about slavery, it wasn't Lincoln's intent to eliminate slavery and the war killed Americans by the train load. Charleston and Atlanta were destroyed.

        And you think it was worthwhile. If you think war is worthwhile, why don't you volunteer to go scramble up and down the mountains of Afghanistan with a target on your back?
      • phenry, on 08/08/2008, -2/+8I feel terrible! I accidentally dugg UP the idiot gonepostal77....
      • roosevans, on 08/09/2008, -0/+10This discussion on the Civil War is very enlightening and informative to me! Thanks Caferrell and GonePostal77!
      • mystcnurse, on 08/09/2008, -1/+5Maybe it is time for a war that IS in our interests.
      • caferrell, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5@mystcnurse, like against the Federal govt.?
      • GonePostal77, on 08/09/2008, -4/+2Caferrell, first, I've never said war was a good thing. The question was whether it was in the best national interest. 143 years after Appomattox, I have yet to find a persuasive argument that it was not. Quoting death tolls is a simple appeal to emotion, not an argument against the war. While it's possible that the South would have eventually freed the slaves as the CSA, and it is quite possible that 30 to 40 years later they might have, even likely, the idea that things would be all rosy and peaches is patently absurd. Southern revisionists love this idea because it gets them around the thorny issue that the people they seem to admire so much for standing up against "Northern Aggression" saw black slaves as less than human, a chattel to be killed or whipped or beaten or sold as they saw fit.

        You are right that Lincoln's ultimate goal was to restore the Union, not free the slaves. I don't dispute that. (Though Lincoln did really push the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery) But on the issue of the war, the South was much more eager to fight than the North. Hell, we should probably blame James Buchanan for allowing things to get that bad. Lincoln was handed an impossible situation. Just his election caused the seccession of several states. You believe he should have let them go. Fine. I think that argument can be made, but if you want to talk outcome, a split US & CS would have been horrible. for the world in general. Becasue in your scenario, Lincoln just letting them go, the US & CS are seperate countries, and slavery remains in force in the south until, say 1900 or so. Race relations in both countries would be 50x worse than they are today. Plus, who knows how many border or full on wars would occur between the US & CS because of the insane amount of tension the split would have caused. Reading newspapers 10 years after the war(which I have done) doesn't allow enough time to judge the true impact and effects of the war.

        Finally, I will acknowledge that Reconstruction was handled poorly. As I stated above, Lincoln's intention was to not allow recrimination and to move swiftly to reunify the nation. The biggest tragedy was Booth's assassination of Lincoln, which hardened the radical Republicans and made it a disaster.

        Finally, your Iraq analogy is hilarious in it's ineptitude. First, the South launched hostilities by firing on Ft. Sumter. Second, unlike Iraq, nothing had to be "alleged". Third, apparently saving the Union was enough to get people to enlist, because as I have said before, that was the original goal of the war. No one thought they were going to free the slaves, probably not even Lincoln. It wasn't a preemptive strike and it wasn't false pretenses. Now, you can yell "states rights" all you want, but the only reason it was even an issue was because since the founding of the US, the issue of slavery boiled beneath most arguments between North and South. The various compromises such as the Fugitive Slave Act made by Congress that tried to keep the South happy and make slavery a non-issue only postponed the inevitable conflict.

        Hate Lincoln all you want. I know how horrible the war was. I've visited the battlefields and I've read all the books (I recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" by the way). The war was inevitable and in our interest in the long term. Delude yourself all you want that you know the "real" history, but after 143 years the documents, speeches, memoirs and facts are pretty much on my side. Sorry.
      • soulkitchen, on 08/09/2008, -1/+3I liked the part where GonePostal 77 accused CAFerrell of making an appeal to emotion, and then (in the same paragraph) added this little guy "a chattel to be killed or whipped or beaten or sold as they saw fit. "
      • Parapadrifter, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2What was the significance of the Knights of the Golden Circle in inflaming people to fight for their rights to own slaves? Wilkes Booth was a member, and European banking interests were involved in their propaganda campaign. It would be advisable to research what they were doing behind the scenes to cause the war. Because thats the way they've always done it back home in Europe.
        War is profittable, especially if you finance both sides.

        A note about Booth and the assination... Lincoln printed govenment "Greenbacks" against the wishes of the international bankers. They got Booth to "wack" him for it. I use wack because they are the MAFIA.
      • honestjoe, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1@GonePostal 77

        You said; "a chattel to be killed or whipped or beaten or sold as they saw fit."

        During the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on September 18, 1858, in Charleston, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln emphatically stated his disgusting view of blacks role in American society.

        "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality; and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of the superiors and the inferiors; and that I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white man".

        Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."

        Also the U.S. Congress in 1862 even refused to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, when the only Senators and Representatives in Congress were from the North (all Southerners had left Congress to form their own nation). How could the North be fighting the War to free Southern slaves when they would not free their own, such as Ulysses S. Grant's personal slave or Abraham Lincoln's father-in-law's slaves whom Lincoln had rented on more than one occasion?

        Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control; Only slaves in those states or regions still in rebellion against the Union, if any southern state returned to the Union within Lincolns deadline given after his Emancipation Proclamation that state could continue to practice slavery like the other Union states and the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave states, if only the Southern states would return to the Union. The South refused the offer.

        And Jefferson Davis had already sent Duncan Kenner to Europe offering emancipation in exchange for recognition of the Confederate States as a sovereign nation while many of the Southern States had been offering incentives such as contracts, tax deductions and etc, to slave owners to free their slaves and in some cases paying up to half of the slave owners purchase price to buy out the slaves from slavery, hence the large shift from slavery toward share cropping before the war!

        The 1860 United States census revealed that there were more Free Men of Color in the Southern states than there were in the northern states and it showed that only about 6% of the total white Southern population held slaves. During the war the were more Union Solders whom owned slaves than Confederate.

        Lincoln himself made it clear that the war was not about slavery when he said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

        Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed, and Illinois had already ratified it before the War broke out.

        In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so".

        And finally evidence by Lincoln himself that the war was unnecessary and unjust:

        The Constitution is meant to be a restraint on Government power. America's Constitution empowers the People and therein lies the beauty and precedence of it as had once been acknowledged by Lincoln on January 20, 1848 when Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln affirmed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence during a portion of a speech to Congress.

        "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this a right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Congressional Globe, Volume XIX, pg 94.

        When judged by the standards every other historical figure is subjected to, it's hard to deny that the man was a bona fide dictator. What would be said of President Bush if he shut down the Charleston City Paper and threw the editors in jail, where alongside senators, judges, politicians, and preachers they would sit indefinitely without trial? President Lincoln did this to over 300 newspapers in the North, arrested over 13,000 political prisoners, suspended habeus corpus, declared martial law, suspended the Bill of Rights, suspended elections, arrested half the Maryland legislature who were going to vote for peace and etc, etc in the NORTH alone!

        Lincoln had to send several regiments to take control of the North with support from Rear Admiral Hiram Paulding, who stationed gunboats around Manhattan to assist the troops entering New York during the Draft Riots by firing cannons on large pockets of organized and well armed resistance that had managed to stop the Union regiments from advancing into the city, using weapons they had plundered from police stations, stores, three military armories and two arms factories.

        It took a week just to take back New York from the citizens with the help of the 20th Independent Battery from Fort Schuyler assisting in the bombardment that was also being carried out by the Navy. Even with this destructive show of force by Lincoln to quell dissent in the North resistance to the war and the draft continued in other cities throughout the North despite the fact that they remained under MARTIAL LAW!

        The total damage throughout the North in today’s dollars was in the billions. In New York alone property damage was estimated by the treasury soon after the riots at about $15 million!

        He did it in complete violation of the Constitution to support his power base and fight a war that was Unconstitutional by his own admittance.

        The most honest assessments of Lincoln come not from his public relations managers in the history field, but from his fellow dictators, who find much to admire in our 16th president.

        When Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf suspended his nation's constitution and declared martial law last November, he said on national television, "Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of crisis, and this was to preserve the Union ... Towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties."

        In 1999, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji justified his country's suppression of Taiwan during a visit with President Bill Clinton. Zhu said, "Abraham Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States ... resorted to the use of force ... so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example."

        And no list of dictator endorsements would be complete without Adolf Hitler, who in Mein Kampf reiterated Lincoln's justification for war; "[T]he individual states of the American Union ... could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union. On the contrary, it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

        Even during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was called by his friends, and to this day even his supporters, the American dictator.
      • GonePostal77, on 08/10/2008, -0/+2Way to invoke Hitler there. It's not relevant, but it must make you feel better about your position.

        Lincoln may have believed that White's were superior. It was a common belief among many abolitionists as well. What Lincoln objected to was the institution of slavery. Here's Lincoln on the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854

        "[The Act has a] declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites — causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest"

        What's quite interesting is during the Lincoln-Douglas debate you quoted, Douglas used a sort of Rovian fear-mongering against Lincoln: "If you desire Negro citizenship… if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves… then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro." I can almost see the ad on TV now...

        Lincoln was far from perfect on race, but he was opposed to slavery. He did hold the continuation of the Union in higher regard at the beginning of his presidency, you are quite right. But his thinking evolved, perhaps as he was exposed to men like Frederick Douglass. Here's Douglass on dealing with Lincoln as President: "The first great man that I talked with in the United States freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."

        After the Emancipation Proclimation was signed, he was received a great deal of grief from Northerners who did not like the idea that the war was about slavery. He wrote the following to one of them:

        "You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.

        I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."

        Finally, I think reading Lincoln's second inaugural address pretty much sums up where he was already headed when he was elected in 1860:

        "On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

        One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'."

        As to Lincoln's domestic conduct during the war, I've never defended it here, so I don't know why you want to bring it up. My initial goal here was to point out the war was in the National interest. Not that Lincoln was all anti-slavery all the time, though he pretty much wanted to end it, allowances made in the North to keep the Union together notwithstanding, After the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln moved towards passing the 13th Amendment. Lincoln was no dictator however, and while it may comfort you to think that this man you hate so was, quoting other dictators does not help your cause.

        As to Kenner's trip to Great Britain in 1864, Davis only sent him because the CSA was beginning to fall apart. Before that time, Davis and the rest had hoped to secure European recognition without giving up slavery. Too late to affect the outcome and little more than a footnote.

        As to Grant's position on slavery, well, he was also allegedly anti-semitic and not the sharpest political operator. That he didn't believe he was fighting to end slavery doesn't negate the fact that his abilities as a General led to the end of slavery.

        Considering that I do not subscribe to your theories on Lincoln and you do not subscribe to mine, I think further discussion on this subject is pointless. I think you are reading Lincoln in a much too narrow way, in a sort of bubble in which he must be either perfect or a monster. That he was neither is something to consider.
    • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -0/+50The war is against the US citizens.
      • Rabbit63, on 08/08/2008, -0/+24And that war is being won.
      • joshstone100, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Remember, we were attacked on September 11, 2001 by evil enemies of Democracy who hate our American freedoms and way of life..
    • Surferess, on 08/08/2008, -10/+3As a southern Californian, I can tell you we need those guys! Besides, what every happened to "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

      And what has any of this got to do w/ a massive US Armada heading to Iran?
      • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -1/+9I think (maybe..) he's saying that here we are being the policemen of the world and we can't even protect our own borders. If just half of the troops stationed in peaceful countries were brought home it would have a huge positive economic impact for the US and we would have troops here in the US to protect our infrastructure and our borders.
      • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+6Surferess, legal immigrants are not an issue. You seem confused by the difference between legal immigrants and Illegal aliens.

        and thanks muckemuck, thats EXACTLY the contradiction I was trying to shed light on.
      • avengingturnip, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5As a southern Californian, are you enjoying the housing bubble blow out caused in large part by bad loans made to immigrants?
    • MarkEarhart, on 08/08/2008, -1/+15Since when does our government ever do anything in our interest?
    • avengingturnip, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7Can't or won't?
    • DigzDogg, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1>This war is not in the US Citizens' interests.
      You gave your rights away. Instead you were given with this Internet thing and this particular forum board to "tell your opinion". Once you tell that, then you are supposed to switch yourself to youtube and mtv. Internet thing allow you think that you "give your note" and so you "live in is democracy state".
      In fact you are not. Nobody will let you _decide_. Ever. Just do as ordered. And for doing that you can blame politicians in forums as long as you want... and then please do not forget to switch to MTV.

      enjoy your state.
    • NavyWife06, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2i promise you...that this IS the concern of US citizens. I am a navy wife...also a citizen of the US...and I am definitely concerned. My husband is out there right now. no one has had any contact with that boat in over 5 days. there are things going on over there that they aren't letting out yet to the news broadcasters. So do some research first.
  • kowcun, on 08/08/2008, -3/+64Here we go...
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+29Three, count them, THREE carrier battle groups are moving to the Persian Gulf.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the attack on Iraq only used one.
      • Rotzooi, on 08/08/2008, -18/+1Yeah, this is going to be a three times more awesome war. I can't wait for those pretty greenlit fireworks on CNN!!! America #1!
    • MarkEarhart, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4Oh *****!!!
    • jorichter, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1...again...
  • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -3/+61If even half of this is true....looks like the MSM and even outlets like huffpo are not covering it. This is looking like WWIII.

    Looks like Battlestar Galactica and crew will be arriving to the nuclear wasteland after all.
  • Shiftgood, on 08/08/2008, -3/+49"Headlining our news today, Yes our very own Michael Phelps took home his Second! goald medal in the mens 100 free, Americans all over the country are celebrating.

    .... oh and we went to war with iran.







    ...and china."
  • soapyeyejoe, on 08/08/2008, -23/+3BS. The blogger provides no sources whatsoever.
    • 2bsbc, on 08/08/2008, -0/+21Here you go soapy. Rinse out those eyes brother.

      http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
      • triplehelix, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1what exactly are you seeing there that i'm not?
      • neveroddoreven, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Lol yeah not quite sure what youre going for there
      • caferrell, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3The locations of all the carriers show that there are two carrier in the Gulf, but they have been there fos a long time,
      • soapyeyejoe, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Sorry for the kneejerk reaction, but when a blog posts makes claims such as that, I expect to see some sources. And yes, it looks like we have some today.
      • 2bsbc, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2No worries. I think we're all on the same side.
  • 911ArtStudent, on 08/08/2008, -3/+49FTA:

    "The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East's oil supply."
    • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -0/+7"...since the Cuban Missile Crisis..."

      LOL how ironic; the Ruskies put those missiles in Cuba b/c we put nukes in Turkey...but of course that's conveniently forgotten most of the time and we're told that the US was being "provoked"...
  • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -1/+38When your families and friends around the country die in this nuclear exchange, remember who caused this. As we go to the brink with these bastards, remember how much they valued your life.
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+26"2008 was a general date by which time everyone realized the world they thought they were living in was over." -- John Titor
      • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -1/+20I was thinking about him the other day....Crazy ***** huh?
      • Rotzooi, on 08/08/2008, -10/+2O please, don't detract from this serious issue with that silly stuff.
      • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2thanks - huge C2C fan and even I forgot that
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+34Stop them from importing benzene? C6H6? That comes from wood ash or charcoal.

    My guess is that benzene and "petroleum products" are not the purpose of this blockade.

    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11Here for absolutely no reason at all is a youtube video of hot Iranian women:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1OAB07dl6o
      • Siegfriedson, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1It's amazing how many of the Iranian women look white or almost white. It must be the shared Indo-European (Aryan) genes.
    • cashman57, on 08/08/2008, -0/+20You must realize that Iran is already in a very precarious situation. They import most of their gasoline because the refineries built in the 1970's are not able to keep up with demand. They already have gas rationing. The restriction of importing benzine hits every family which uses benzine for cooking. That is a large percentage of the population. Iran has a problem with their currency not unlike our own. They have a central bank that is not under the direct control of the mullahs whose only ability to create more money comes from printing it because charging interest is contrary to the islamic law they live under.
      As the central bank issues more money to the government the money in circulation becomes worth less creating the need to issue more money and diluting the value of the currency even more.
      This has led to double digit inflation and double digit unemployment.
      When the wacky mullahs took over the government in 1979 they promised full employment. They have never come close to fulfilling that promise.
      That there is unrest in that country is without doubt even though participants in gatherings of protesters have been beaten and jailed.
      The Iranian military is straining to keep their aircraft aloft and navy afloat and army fed, equipped and paid.
      The purpose of the blockade seems to be to cause more misery in Iran with the hope of causing an uprising when in fact if we do nothing an uprising is more likely to occur.
      With our naval blockade the Iranian government can now blame the great satan for all of its troubles and get off the hook for creating the mess and strife.
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+29More on Operation Brimstone:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCXQHexflY

    http://www.news.navy.mil /search/display.asp?story_id=38478

    From Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet Public Affairs

    NORFOLK (NNS) -- More than 15,000 service members from four countries will participate in Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 "Operation Brimstone", July 21-31 in North Carolina and off the eastern U.S. coast from Virginia to Florida.

    JTFEX 08-4 serves as a ready-for-deployment certification event for the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group (TR CSG) and the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (IWO ESG). The exercise will also serve as a Joint Task Force Capable Headquarters sustainment event. In addition, JTFEX 08-4 will offer preliminary accreditation for 2nd Fleet's Maritime Headquarters with Maritime Operations Center (MHQ with MOC)). MHQ with MOC is a new approach to command and control for fleet commanders.

    "This exercise is a tremendous opportunity to train; not only as the Navy and Marine Corps team, but with our joint and coalition partners as well," said Commander, 2nd Fleet Vice Adm. Marty Chanik.

    "JTFEX 08-4 will flex our warfighting capabilities from the operational level through expeditionary strike force and strike group operations with several of our coalition partners – France, Brazil and the United Kingdom."

    The exercise also marks the first time that forces from Navy Expeditionary Combat Command are participating in an East-Coast JTFEX. NECC forces operating in the littorals and riverine environment are supporting integrated operations.

    "Navy Expeditionary Combat Command provides a self-contained adaptive force package with a command element tailored to support the full spectrum of operations from major combat operations to unconventional and irregular warfare," said NECC commander Rear Adm. Mike Tillotson.

    U.S. and coalition naval assets underway for the exercise include the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) with associated units including the British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (RO 7), the Brazilian Navy frigate Greenhalgh (F-46) and the French submarine FS Amethyste (S 605). BNS Greenhalgh is the first Brazilian Navy ship to operate integrated in a U.S. strike group.

    French Rafale fighter aircraft assigned to the 12th Squadron, and Hawkeye early warning aircraft assigned to the 4th Squadron will conduct carrier qualifications and cyclic flight operations with U.S. Carrier Air Wing 8 during Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group's Joint Task Force Exercise. This marks the first integrated U.S. and French carrier qualifications and cyclic flight operations aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier.

    The TR CSG is made up of: USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71); Commander, Carrier Strike Group 2 (CCSG-2); Carrier Air Wing 8 (CVW-8); Commander, Destroyer Squadron 22 (CDS-22); the guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61); the guided-missile destroyers USS Mason (DDG 87), and USS Nitze (DDG 94) homeported in Norfolk; the attack submarine USS Springfield (SSN 761) homeported in Groton, Conn.; and the guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) homeported in Mayport, Fla.

    The IWO ESG consists of USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), Commander, Amphibious Squadron Four (CPR-4) based at Little Creek, Va.; the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26 MEU) based at Camp Lejune, N.C.; the amphibious transport dock ship San Antonio (LPD 17); guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG 72); and the guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage (DDG 61), homeported in Norfolk; the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) homeported at Little Creek, Va.; the guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt (DDG 80) homeported in Mayport, Fla., and the attack submarine USS Hartford (SSN 768) homeported in Groton, Conn.

    The Navy Expeditionary Combat Task Group (NECTG) is made up of: Riverine Group 1 staff augmented with personnel from throughout the NECC force, Riverine Squadron 1, Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron Ten, based in Jacksonville, Fla.; an air detachment from Naval Construction Forces Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11 based in Gulfport, Miss.; Navy Cargo Handling Battalion 3, based in Alameda, Calif.), and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 6 plus EOD Support Unit based at Little Creek, Va.

    In addition, the following forces are participating in the exercise simulating opposition forces: the guided-missile destroyer USS Carney (DDG 64), homeported in Mayport, Fla.; the guided missile cruisers USS San Jacinto (CG 56), USS Anzio (CG 68) and USS Normandy (CG 60), the guided-missile destroyers USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79), USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81); and the guided-missile frigate USS Carr (FFG 52), all homeported in Norfolk.
    • Rotzooi, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1And going by the nerdy naming conventions our military loves to use, we are now one "Operation Fire" short. You heard it here first.
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -2/+30Also can someone explain to me France's 180-degree reversal on attacking Iran?
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+23This is four years old, but still relevant:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A55414-2004Nov16.html

    Iran's New Alliance With China Could Cost U.S. Leverage

    By Robin Wright
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A21

    TEHRAN -- A major new alliance is emerging between Iran and China that threatens to undermine U.S. ability to pressure Tehran on its nuclear program, support for extremist groups and refusal to back Arab-Israeli peace efforts.

    The relationship has grown out of China's soaring energy needs -- crude oil imports surged nearly 40 percent in the first eight months of this year, according to state media -- and Iran's growing appetite for consumer goods for a population that has doubled since the 1979 revolution, Iranian officials and analysts say.

    An oil exporter until 1993, China now produces only for domestic use. Its proven oil reserves could be depleted in 14 years, oil analysts say, so the country is aggressively trying to secure future suppliers. Iran is now China's second-largest source of imported oil.

    The economic ties between two of Asia's oldest civilizations, which were both stops on the ancient Silk Road trade route, have broad political implications.

    Holding a veto at the U.N. Security Council, China has become the key obstacle to putting international pressure on Iran. During a visit to Tehran this month, Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing signaled that China did not want the Bush administration to press the council to debate Iran's nuclear program. U.S. officials have expressed fear that China's veto power could make Iran more stubborn in the face of U.S. pressure.

    The burgeoning relationship is reflected in two huge new oil and gas deals between the two countries that will deepen the relationship for at least the next 25 years, analysts here say.

    Last month, the two countries signed a preliminary accord worth $70 billion to $100 billion by which China will purchase Iranian oil and gas and help develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi border. Earlier this year, China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied natural gas from Iran over a quarter-century.

    Iran wants trade to grow even further. "Japan is our number one energy importer for historical reasons . . . but we would like to give preference to exports to China," Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said this month, according to China Business Weekly.

    In turn, China has become a major exporter of manufactured goods to Iran, including computer systems, household appliances and cars. "We mutually complement each other. They have industry and we have energy resources," said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    China's trade with Iran is weakening the impact on Iranian policy of various U.S. economic embargoes, analysts here say. "Sanctions are not effective nowadays because we have many options in secondary markets, like China," said Hossein Shariatmadari, a leading conservative theorist and editor of the Kayhan newspapers.

    Accurate trade figures are difficult to get, in part because trade is increasing so rapidly and partly because China's large arms sales to Iran are not included or publicized. But at the second annual Iran-China trade fair here in May, Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Gao Hucheng said trade had increased by 50 percent in 2003 over the previous year, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

    Beijing has also provided Iran with advanced military technology, including missile technology, U.S. officials say. In April, the Bush administration imposed sanctions on Chinese manufacturers of equipment that can be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

    The Iran-China ties may be partly a response to the United States, analysts here say. President Bush's strategy has been to contain both China and the Islamic republic, said Siamak Namazi, a political and economic analyst, "so that's created natural allies."

    The growing presence of U.S. and other Western troops in Central and South Asia and the Middle East is another joint concern. In the English-language Kayhan International, Ali Sabzevari wrote in an editorial: "Politically, the two countries share a common interest in checking the inroads being made by NATO in Asia. . . . The presence of outsiders does not bode well for peace and security."

    The countries also share concerns over radical Sunni Muslims. Most Iranians follow the rival Shiite strain of Islam; China has more than 20 million Muslims, and the government has been facing Muslim unrest in some of its western cities. The dissidents receive support from Islamic groups in Afghanistan and the countries of former Soviet Central Asia -- the region that straddles both Iran and China.

    Islam has historically been a link between the two civilizations. It made its way to China via Persia, the ancient state that was based in present-day Iran, Iranians note. Many Chinese Muslims pray in Persian, not Arabic. Their everyday language is Turkic, but their alphabet is Persian.

    But in recent times, ties between China and Iran have not always prospered. In the midst of the unrest that led to Iran's revolution, one of the last foreign leaders to visit Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi before he was overthrown in 1979 was Chinese Communist Party chief Hua Kuo-feng. "The visit left a very strong negative feeling about China among Iranians," said Abbas Maleki, director of the Caspian Institute, a Tehran research organization.

    But today, China with its one-party political system appears to feel fewer restraints than do Western nations in dealing with the world's only theocracy. "For China, issues like human rights don't affect your relations with Iran," Namazi said.
    • jorichter, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2My brain...

      Good info though. But a lot.

  • MarkusGarvey, on 08/08/2008, -2/+28OEN picked it up... http://www.opednews.com/articles/World-War-III-Nea ... i wouldn't doubt this is really happening....they have been setting us up for quite a while now....if they are really putting that much hardware there, it ain't gonna be no game...we need more conformation on this one...
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+15"Operation Brimstone" turns up a ton of confirmation from US military sources.

      I've been combing the Chinese web for something that might indicate how Beijing plans to respond, but so far have found nothing,
      Isn't that just like the Chinese to NOT announce who they plan to attack seven years or more in advance.
  • sportsstar67, on 08/08/2008, -24/+1It's about damn time
    • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13I thought you people were terrible at sports.
      • sportsstar67, on 08/08/2008, -18/+1guess again
      • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -0/+15OK, the only other one I have is that you're really stupid.
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+14Just ***** off, will you?
    • cashman57, on 08/08/2008, -1/+14sportsstar67/pajeff2 your one line responses show the depth of your intellect.
      • kemp34, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7Every time.
      • neveroddoreven, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2i believe your response was one line as well
      • beerock, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1no you don't believe, you know, because you just read it, Jackass.
  • sphira, on 08/08/2008, -0/+22If the Navy forms a blockade, Iran will likely 1st respond with

    " a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January."

    Israel is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah claims its rockets – enhanced and resupplied by Iran since the 2006 war to an estimated 30,000 – can now hit anywhere in the Jewish state, including its nuclear plant at Dimona.

    and of course
    "fighters" will be coming out of the woodwork in Iraq

    On the other hand -

    If the US goes way of the Powell doctrine -

    Even Admiral William Fallon, who publicly opposed a US strike on Iran before he resigned in April, dismissed Iran as a military threat. "Get serious," Adm. Fallon told Esquire in March. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p07s04-wome.htm ...

    So the real question will remain - did you get all the nuke capability -

    Not likely -
    They'll be back -
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+24It's astounding to me just how rash this is. Wars tend to have unpredictable consequences, and the US is not remotely prepared for anything besides the scenario they themselves have in mind--a quick air war with Iran folding within a few weeks and no one else in the region making a fuss.

    Supposing Iran doesn't cave after a month of bombing? What then? They're not prepared for a ground war; for that they should have started up the draft a year ago.

    And suppose Iran makes good on its threats to attack US bases in the region? Can the forces in Iraq or Afghanistan resist a well-equipped million-man army?

    Also If Russia or China put forth even the tiniest bit of effort they could push the US off the Eurasian continent entirely. Actually any kind of Chinese involvement would be absolutely disastrous.
    • 2bsbc, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Hangly, I think we're seeing Russia put forth an effort by getting involved in Georgia now.
  • sphira, on 08/08/2008, -0/+22"They're not prepared for a ground war"

    I disagree -
    they are tougher than we are (in a true grit sense) -
    and much much more motivated
    Iran has vast mountainous regions and enclaves in the former Soviet states -

    I'm sure they have been planning a fight with us since their revolution -

    another real twist will be if they attack us here -
    which I have no doubt the Cryptocrats want
    then -
    watch all debate on the Patriot act and related go right out the window -
    • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8What debate?
      • sphira, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7Umm -
        Yes - good point
        my bad -

        sounded good -
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5I meant the US isn't prepared for a ground war. It's difficult sometimes for me to refer to the US military or government as "us."

      And you're right. We have what, 130,000 troops in Iraq? Counting the militias, Iran has about 20 million people under arms.

      If I were Ahmedinejad my first move would be to take Basra. It's right there, and it's all Shia. 500,000 troops should do it. That would take the fight outside Iran's borders and humiliate the Pentagon. Also if a large number of soldiers were taken hostage the American people would lose whatever enthusiasm they had for the war immediately. See how US troops do fighting house-to-house against a numerically superior army and a hostile population.

      It would also probably surprise the ***** out of the US military. What was the last country the US attacked that actually shot back? North Vietnam?
      • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4Like the French Foreign Legion the US will recruit from other places (in the case of the US, Latin America will be used). Those who serve for 5 years will be promised citizenship...and that way no draft
  • britishnproud, on 08/08/2008, -1/+21It gets worse,

    Russia and Georgia are pretty much at war with one another already.
    If you do not already have storable foods I suggest you write a will because you are screwed already, dead man walking. Will take quite a period for you to stalve to death too, OMG.

    You were warned time and time again and now it is too late.
    • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10It is never too late, it is just going to be much more painful to stop them now, than it would have been years ago.

  • Rabbit63, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1457 DIGGS for 34 comments? Is that normal?
  • FrankHope, on 08/08/2008, -0/+28FTA: "A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia."
    ---
    And now war has broken out! Maybe this writer knows what he's talking about.
    • sphira, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Very astute observation Frank
      interesting
    • KCLorelei39, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Immediately after reading this blog entry, written yesterday, I saw this 'developing story' today from FoxNews:

      Georgia, Russia 'Very Close' to War Over Breakaway Republic South Ossetia
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399962,00.html

      Where is Syria in all this mess? Wasn't that the third country in the "axis of evil"?

      does Dubya think if he starts another war, he can be remain the prez forever?
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1As if the Russian military couldn't smash through Georgia and keep on going.

      Anyway one is a job for the army, the other is a job for the navy. I don't think Ossetia will be a problem for Russia.
  • citcokid, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Or lost, from the peoples point of view.
  • FrankHope, on 08/08/2008, -0/+18More on Operation Brimstone:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCXQHexflY
    ---
    I searched for Operation Brimstone in Google News. There were no stories from the MSM on this, but it is real. See the video.
  • V3n0M, on 08/08/2008, -1/+18Chilling... I think I feel a draft...
    • GlobalistShill, on 08/08/2008, -1/+10*sigh* It is very possible. If implemented, it must be fought. This war mongering is wicked and criminal, and everyone needs to stand against it,... fresh false flag terror events or no! And this insanity is all for their precious "New World Order" where the Middle East is set up to be ravaged and controlled by the oil men, the privately owned military industrial complex, the central bankers, and those whom they serve! And it is all part of a long game strategy to control of the world's assets by a handful of string pullers at the top.

      It's been said before but I'll say it again,... this is NOT for America's interests! Quite the opposite.
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4If the US were anticipating a ground war don't you think the draft would have been reinstated by now?

      And why aren't they anticipating a ground war? Are they stupid?
    • nycmac247, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Yes - MEXICANS will be drafted and given citizenship for fighting...
    • vbullinger, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4"I see what you did there." :)
  • GlobalistShill, on 08/08/2008, -0/+16They've been targeting Iran for a long, long time. Now, under the cover of the Olympic games 8/8/08, I imagine they are hoping the American public (and the world) take little notice of this highly aggressive action. Mainstream media isn't reporting it because they suck and are effectively propaganda arms of the government.
  • maxtangent, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13Interesting timing, don't you think? The Olympics make a nice distraction.
    "WWIII? Who cares? We just won gold in Water Polo!"
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 08/08/2008, -1/+15Lets see how much US msm coverage this gets. I'm guessing none, because the news has been cancelled to bring you the Obama/Mcain show.
    • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9You want a round number of MSM coverage? Like a real round number? 0
  • kemp34, on 08/08/2008, -0/+22More illegal activity by the Bush Administration. These lunatics need to be stopped before they take everything down with them.
    • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9I am open to suggestions. Short of a massive public strike, which would require a fairly significant percentage of the population to take part in - and with their current "me me me" philosophy of humanity, I am not sure it can be done.

      Any suggestions?
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Mortar attack on the capitol from the other side of the river.
      • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2and justify martial law?
      • Hangly, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2Yes.

        The goal of any revolution/guerrilla war should be to provoke the state into overreacting.

        You wreck some property, and the state has to expend money, resources, time and manpower trying to find you and "maintain order." In the process they'll violate the rights of a lot of ordinary people. This further radicalizes the public and swells the ranks of the resistance.

        That's what Mao did, that's what the Iraqi insurgency is doing, and that's what American guerrilla Francis Marion (the guy in my avatar) did.
        Or did you think a revolution could be won by standing on the street waving a sign?
    • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Or

      Blow up some railroads, important pieces of the interstate highway system, and TV broadcast towers.
      Cut some cable TV lines.
      Set fire to some federal office buildings (at night of course.)

      Standard stuff. The railroads and highway system in the US are especially vulnerable since much of them are not only unguarded but completely unobserved a lot of the time. It would be easy to cause a lot of havoc without getting caught.


      It's never been said but I set precedents.
  • Herbalici0us, on 08/08/2008, -1/+9All of this is a prelude to a major U.S. conflict, martial law......king george.
  • beatles901, on 08/08/2008, -3/+11I don't think this will happen. This is just posturing and Iran sees right through it. The US and French force may seem daunting, but people forget on the ground the US is losing badly in Iraq and Afghanistan. They lie to us and tell us the surge is the reason the deaths in Iraq has gone down. It isn't. It's the huge partition walls they built all around Iraq. It's also the Iranians urging the Shia militias to put their arms down.

    The blockade requires congressional consent. A resolution was passed decreeing that Bush may not engage in a war with Iran without express congressional approval. H.Con.Res 362 almost made that happen thanks to our "diligent" congressman signing on to a bill without even reading it. AIPAC supported that bill (even cowrote it) and did a full press to make it go through.

    The anti-war factions banded together and overcame AIPAC. The resolution lost its momentum. It now sits gathering dust. A victory against AIPAC that has been unheralded thanks to the lack of media coverage.

    Let's say a blockade does occur... what then? Russia and China will escort tankers to Iran. The US and French would not dare attack Russia or China to work their blockade. Additionally, the shipping lanes are not the only methods of importing benzene or enriched petroleum products. Air lifts can occur for Iran, just like they did for Berlin in the 50s. In any case, Iran will not be alone.
  • GonePostal77, on 08/08/2008, -6/+5Have you read the rest of that guy's blog? He's a nut job. He's quoting Nostradamus in one post. He's a "Scottish Lord" but lives in Indiana? There is very little reason to believe a blockade of Iran is about to occur, especially one WITH European assistance. A blockade is clear prelude to war. No way that Europe would go along with that. Sanctions, yes, a blockade, no. Jeeze, some people are paranoid.
  • neveroddoreven, on 08/08/2008, -10/+1Does anyone actually think war is going to break out? I'm sorry I'll put my money on that it won't. I mean all you guys are talking about how its too late etc. If you're so sure just put money on it and short the stock exchange or buy a military contractor stock. And there is this talk about the draft. You people have been suspecting a draft ever since the war in Iraq started and that didn't happen. I'm just wondering how do you guys feel when you turn out to be wrong? I'm sure you just go on to another conspiracy theory or doomsday scenario that you can complain about. Whats entertaining is that I can imagine some of you stocking up on rations and building your own fallout shelter in preparation. It makes me smile. Can we make a wager. You can digg me down now but if nothing happens you all just slap yourselves in your face and send me an apology.
    • kemp34, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7Being prepared and being wrong = you are still prepared (say an earthquake hits, I live in California and it is a real possibility always).

      Being unprepared and being wrong = *****.

      I don't know about you, but I know which place I would rather be.

      There is no reasonable basis for trying to criticize people who prepare themselves for the worst, especially when numerous storm clouds are brewing (see Georgia and Russia).
      • neveroddoreven, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1so what are you doing to "prepare"? Are you shoring stocks? Buying gold? Building a bomb shelter fully stocked with rations? I guess that's the real way to gauge whether you believe in your own *****. Yes I understand the being prepared argument but how many people running their mouths about impending war are actually getting ready for it. cuz if you dont prepare do you really believe in it? So please use your "reasonable basis" to prepare for the worst. I admire your commitment to your beliefs
  • onreact, on 08/08/2008, -1/+10Jerusalem Post partly confirms this:
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104 ...

    Also check out this version:
    "U.S. Aircraft Carriers Head For The Gulf; Kuwait Prepares "Emergency War Plan""
    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011874353
  • oconnor11, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Congress hasn't passed the blockade bill I didn't think. I hope they don't do it anyway or use an Israeli first-strike to justify it. Sadly, wars sometimes "help" the economy. I hope this isn't the reasoning for all this because we are so far in debt, I doubt seriously this is going to help anyone. If they are using this as a cover for when our economy collapses, I hope the masses figure out we were on our way down anyway and all this government did was help hurry it along.........at the expense of peoples' lives.
  • GlobalistShill, on 08/08/2008, -1/+12It appears as if this story has just disappeared from the Hot in All Topics list, even though it was climbing extremely rapidly and only 14 hours old. I don't think I've ever seen a story come back after that happens.

    It's very important to some that the US and Israel look like victims and not aggressors, you see. Very important...

    Anyone who has been watching closely will have observed how stories like this,... anything that goes against the grain of the status quo or flies in the face of the mainstream media, almost never hit front page of Digg. "Move along, absolutely nothing to see here..."

    In light of this, I would suggest that everyone pass this along to others through other means,... email, blogs,... whatever means of networking you have. If it's important enough to try to keep secret, it's important enough to share.
    • neveroddoreven, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2It's because this is a blog. Blogs don't constitute news. Wait till a major news network covers it with some credible sources rather than.. none. Then it will make front page as news. I'm surprised so many people are so quick to believe this without any sources at all.
      • GlobalistShill, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4The major news networks are owned by a handful of elites who have specific political agendas. THEY pick and choose largely what can or cannot be covered at the behest of the government. This is an information war. By the time the Old Media reports it, it will be in a totally different context with a "Western" politically-correct SPIN. The public will not support a war when it APPEARS as if they are the aggressors with an unjust cause.
  • joshstone100, on 08/08/2008, -1/+9What can we citizens do to stop this war, nothing? Call our Representatives? Write Congress?
    • sportsstar67, on 08/08/2008, -8/+2ROFL
    • maxtangent, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9Mass protests might work - if they can avoid having police infiltrators start violence.
    • Hangly, on 08/09/2008, -0/+3Direct action.
    • AlwaysAwake, on 08/10/2008, -0/+3NOTHING less than massive, non-violent grass roots complete civil disobedience to all local, state, and federal government and business Authorities, demanding a return of our Freedom, and a stop to this aggression, will work NOW. Action, not talk !! It will work to bring them down, as it did in Venezuela, whatever you may think of Hugo Chavez. Anything less will end up in extermination for many, and permanent enslavement for the rest of us. Don't worry about saving your little "slice of the pie", the whole pie has been stolen already, as we will soon see. Will there be casualties ? Certainly some; but not on the enormous scale of the alternative. So, let's forget our petty, superficial racial, ethnic, political, and religious differences, and come together for our common good. Ron Paul, or any other honest public servants, are powerless without our massive, active support NOW.
  • ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6I wouldn't expect our military to tell us that they are doing this. Security reason and all that. Iran recently in not so many words said "***** you" and are not going to stop our nuclear enrichment program. Then the situation in South Ossetia, how convenient that one of our Allies decides to go ahead and eliminate a "evil regime" in light of all the tensions in the Middle East right now.

    The Blockade could very well be the next step in sanctions against Iran which would explain our allied countries also committing equipment and personnel. To say the least Israel has been perusing permission to attack Iran for a while. I don't know if it will break out in war, but there is a very real possibility of that. If it does break out in war better hold on to your pants because its going to get ugly. I definitely don't war to happen, But seeing how we have Cheney still in office hes probably licking his eyebrows at the thought of another war to further fatten his and his buddies pockets.

    All this happens right at the time of the Olympics. Greeeeaaaatttt.

    update: 100+ Russian tanks are heading into Georgia. - CNN
  • MarkEarhart, on 08/08/2008, -4/+9OK folks. This is very serious, and could at best change American life as we know it if it escalates, but more likely would throw us into martial law after more false flag attacks on the homeland. Either way we are screwed. There are many other issues, the economy for one, that spell impending doom for our nation.

    Now, I know this is not going to make me popular, but if I didn’t warn you my conscience would kill me. There is an afterlife, and there are only two possible destinations beyond this mortal existence. Everyone has heard what they are. The neocons and the religious right have set a very bad example of Christianity, and I was once highly critical of the God of the Bible myself because of the way the holier than thou crowd treated me.

    Having established that, I hope to meet all of you on the other side. I pray for the nation and the world, but I pray for my friends more earnestly. I’m not preaching at you or claiming to be perfect (you all know I am far from it), it is the mercy of Jesus Christ I am talking to you about. Being a recipient of that mercy is what drives me to have an interest in the rest of the nation, the world, and other people. A few years ago I cared for no one but myself. I was an evil bitter person. Once a person realizes that God is not an old man with a stick going around looking for someone to hit on the head, and that he took on human form, lived on earth, and bled and died out of love for all of us regardless of how evil we have been it changes one’s priorities. Having received such grace is the only reason I am still alive.

    I’m not pointing any fingers or calling anyone a bad person, but we all have a sinful nature that we require forgiveness for. The religions of the world offer many sage words and good moral advice, but none of them lead to the one and only God. The only way to God is through acceptance of his own sacrifice on the cross 2000 years ago in the form of Jesus. “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me.”-Jesus John 14:6 (KJV)

    I won’t keep on, and will only speak of this further with any who wish to discuss it. You can shout me or contact me at mearhart74@yahoo.com. May God bless you every one, and many he have mercy on the people of the United States, its allies, and the world.

    Best Regards,
    Mark
    • Shiftgood, on 08/09/2008, -2/+3boy are you in for a big surprise when you die.
    • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -1/+3You might want to look into books about leaving the body or OBE / OOBE - once you learn how to do it there is no more questioning of what comes "next." In reality, it a lot lot lot more massive of universe than you've been taught and although Sun / Son worship does have its place IMHO its much more satisfying to base your ideas on direct experience instead of _literally_ blind faith. When someone says "You're a tool!" - you know what that means, right?
  • eldudereno, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13I hope this is wrong but i fear not. with all the good people standing up against an administration like that of george bushs i thought they might do something like this.
    All bad governments have started wars to protect themselves and further their illeagal ambitions, i just hope most americans see through this and dont get all patriotic in the face of a bad war
  • sportsstar67, on 08/08/2008, -13/+2It's about damn time
  • pajeff2, on 08/08/2008, -12/+1GO GET THEM GEORGE...LET THE GAMES BEGIN !!! BURY THESE MORONS
  • beerock, on 08/08/2008, -0/+12Oh sweet merciful God, the ***** has hit the fan.
  • Sandiec99, on 08/08/2008, -6/+2we should humble ourselves and repent and pray and seek God's guidance in all matters . . .
    • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1how come when I read statements like that, now, I automatically feel that the writer / speaker is somehow a closet sex offender / has a hidden life that we will later find out about
  • Leadman584, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11Why do we need to send such a massive armada to fight Iran?

    The fifth fleet is a big sitting duck. They need lots of help. The Iranians have 1000+ Russian, and French made anti-ship missiles positioned along the gulf. With the additional aircraft and missile assets available, maybe it won't turn out like Custer's last stand did. It is gonna get really crowded with all of these ships. Maneuvering will become difficult. Iran may decide to harass this group in the Straits, to provoke an attack, and sink anything entering the gulf.

    Just remember the Russian and Chinese subs won't be using HE tips.

    They will not surrender, and we will have to commit Genocide to prevail. If a Chinese vessel is forced to engage US forces, Our President and his daddy may have to be detained by the Chinese government. Since waterboarding isn't torture, according to Dubya, Make it a Pay-Per-View event, and charge. The world will pay gladly for the show.

  • Catspaw, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7 I wonder if the men in charge appreciate the Nuremberg Principles and the definition of a war crime. When the time comes I hope they remember them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
  • blueridgewv, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11All under the cover and distraction of the Olympics in China.
  • Sternsgang, on 08/09/2008, -13/+1Good nuke Iran. We will see who "gets wiped off the map"
    • xang, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5You do realize that the guy who supposedly said that (and I say supposedly because that expression doesn't exist in the persian tongue) doesn't control their armed forces. Right?
    • Hangly, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Dude, now you're starting to piss off Good Cop.
  • theandyj, on 08/09/2008, -1/+3Why don't blogs ever post sources...
    Does anyone have any credible sources to this?

    Links please?
  • Hangly, on 08/09/2008, -2/+9Major military movements by the US are underway and this thread is still stalled at 240? What the ***** is going on here?

    Edit: nope, not in Upcoming either.

    Time to resubmit this.
  • ginge51, on 08/09/2008, -0/+10Somebody resubmitt this.
    Proves even this place is censored to death :(
  • nycmac247, on 08/09/2008, -3/+3You know that Russia was also doing "exercises" right outside of Georgia before invading, right?
  • JamesPDX, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4So when is it OK to start comparing our great country the USA to Germany in the 1930's?

    We are invading sovereign nations for no valid reason. We are fighting against people because of their religion...

    Is it OK now?
    • basicben, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1James, to point out the obvious...

      We are fighting people because they attacked us and killed a few thousand of our fellow citizens in the process. You were apparently in your thirty's at the time and have no recollection of this? It made all the papers and news broadcasts. OK, maybe you were making some koolaid or something at the time and just didn't notice.

      We can't replicate 1930's Germany unless Obama is elected so calm down. That's not gonna happen.

      Hope this was helpful and remember,

      Just Say No to Drugs!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.