Standing Bear wrote:
Remember the Hindenberg? What, not old enough? Well we all saw the
frantic newscast and the fiery pictures often enough if we have even been
marginally educated. Most commentators blamed the Germans for being
'stupid' for building a hydrogen derigible or at least fueling it with
hydrogen. The darker truth was that we Americans refused to sell them any
helium, and allied business interests controlled the entire supply of helium.
And the surprising truth, learned years later, was that the hydrogen had
little or nothing to do with the fire. The fabric was painted with
airplane dope and was horribly flammable; once it caught there was
nothing that could stop it, and had the bags inside been filled with
helium it would probably have made no difference.
For a little bit of evidence accessible to anyone (not just experts):
Dig those flames in the news reels! And then recall that hydrogen burns
with an invisible flame.
(Had it been filled with halon, of course, it would have been a
different story but that stuff's not lighter than air.)
The Germans had no choice but to use hydrogen if they were going to fly a
derigible, and they were too proud to admit that they were not allowed to buy
it.
A similar analogy may hold for Iran. It may not be a lack of oil field
expertise but a lack of the proper oil field equipment that is the root cause
of their problems if in fact they are in the position stated at the outset of
this thread. Being devil's advocate and accepting the initial premise, and
then going further to agree with the premise that the Iranians are running
out of supply unless they can get help from outside 'western?!' oil
interests, then why is that help not forthcoming? Why are not the major oil
monopoly interests interested in trooping into Iran for a share of the
spoils? Could it be that the Iranians are being quietly shaken down and
like the Germans with the Hindenberg too proud to admit it. Could it be that
the same monopoly that is siphoning off Iraqi oil and profiteering with it in
the United States is demanding concessions in the oil industry that the
Iranians are not prepared to stoop to? Of course the Iranians, facing an
energy problem born of western equipment embargos, would seek to alleviate
this problem by seeking nuclear energy. Devil's advocating further, could it
be that our 'enlightened governments' know this too
One thing our current administration presumably knows very well is
everything having to do with oil. So, they certainly are aware of the
condition of the Iranian oilfields.
but are choosing to make
accusations of attempted bomb making known to be false in a bald faced attempt
to blackmail the Iranians into surrenduring their oil fields to foreign
interests at bargain basement prices while Iranians live in poverty.....like
the Nigerians. Of course we could 'give them a reactor' that does not
produce 'radiation',
'radiation'? Nobody cares about the radiation AFAIK. They care about
the weapons-grade uranium which can be made by a home-grown enrichment
facility. IOW they care about the centrifuges, /not/ the reactors.
The nuclear bunker buster which is rumored to be sitting in the belly of
a plane in Israel waiting for the green light is targeted for the
enrichment facility, not a reactor.
but such a thing would require fuel, and we all know who
controls the supply of that.
We do? I don't. I thought there were a number of countries in the
nuclear fuel business, including Iran's neighbor, Russia. In fact there
have been offers from Russia to handle the enrichment end of things for
Iran, if they would give up their plan to do it all themselves.
So now they would simply trade one dependance
for another at a higher price. Now the Iranians want to create the complete
fuel cycle so that they would be the master of their own economy. Monopoly
interests do not want to let them do that, for then they would be truly
independant, and the oil monopolies that control our administration seem to
be very afraid of this. So the United States' administration continues to
make threats backing up the lie that Iranians are wanting N-weapons, and the
Iranians, their backs to the wall, are too proud to give up the dream of
every free peoples for freedom and independance. Still devil's advocatin,
this could logically lead inexorably to war; moreover, a war where we
Americans would be morally wrong.
Like Iraq? Like Viet Nam?
So new?
The GI in the trenches would know this
first and would quickly find out just who they would be expected to die for.
Americans do not like to be used as mercenaries for international cartels
that care less about them individually than the dust under their shoes, and
would rightly start refusing to fight.
Like they have in Iraq?
They are doing so already. There is
the ugly story of contaminated fuel sold by American/Saudi monopoly interests
being foisted on 'allied military and civilian contractors, and the victims
of this scam being stranded on dangerous roads all over Iraq to be easily
picked off by the jihadis. When the survivors of that scam were ordered to
use that fuel and keep quiet about it, many refused and were then prosecuted
for 'failure to repair'...UCMJ Articles 15 and 32. So now continues yet
again another version of the Great Game.
Another writer stated that the disgraceful 'deal' with North Korea is to
'clear' the way for action in Iran should it 'come to that'. The US
administration is making a bad bargain, as North Koreans subscribe to the
'ends justify the means', an old communist moral code artical of faith, and
will break any word or treaty if it is expedient; and the sight of their
'arch-enemy' fully commited in one place would be too great an opportunity
to ignore. On the other hand, a treaty with Iran if obtainable would probably
be kept by a people and religion sworn to tell the truth and uphold ones word
of honor as a fundamental tenet of their religion. Look at the history of the
Iran/Iraq war and re-read what passed for 'news' from Iraqi Baathist sources
as opposed to that from Iran in the same period and judge for yourself.
The Iraqi Baathists are Muslims, too, FWIW. Last I heard, anyway. They
just disagree over with the Iranians over whether or not the fourth
calif was a murderous psychopath, or something like that.
We have the dangerous situation of being led by self righteous men and
women who have cocooned themselves in a fortress mentality much as
Nixon in the early 70's and Hitler after 1943. With only a few international
corporate racketeers and a cental core of the administration talking to each
other and ignoring or firing all others at advisory levels, it is little
wonder the resulting policies seem disjointed, opaque, and totally lacking
in intelligence. This in case of war will guarantee huge casualties on our
side. The British know this, they suffered terribly in 'Irak' during the
twenties by trying to do too much with too little. That is why they are
bailing out now while the getting is good and the road to escape is open.
They know!
By the way, what we have now is not 'war'. Read the United States
Constitution! Only Congress can declare war! They have not done so.
Have we had any real war since WWII? This is a serious question.
Viet Nam wasn't, of course. I don't think Korea was, either, but I'm
not sure about that. Desert Storm took place without a declaration of
war, AFAICR. Reagan had one or two little dustups which also involved
no declaration of war. Clinton's missile attack on a pharmaceutical
plant certainly didn't involve a declaration of war.
Declarations of War are explicit statements plainly understandible by all,
and say the words 'declaration of war' in them.
And then Bush would be Commander in Chief for real, with some additional
powers he doesn't currently have. I'm very glad they haven't declared
war. Like ancient Rome, when the gates of war are opened, the United
States acquires an Emperor for the duration; it reverts to its more
democratic status only when the war ends.
da Bear
