Re: Predictions of few years ahead
Greetings, would-be fellow travelers:
Well, you don't have to wear a conical hat with yellow stars emblazoned on it and stare into a bowl of water, nor examine the entrails of current events and the cyclical nature of the Papacy to predict a future conflict with Iran. You merely have to consult no less a mystical source than.....GQ Magazine.
Thass' right, folks! The May issue features "The Next War Is Closer Than You Think," by Joshua Kurlantzick including an exclusive interview with Iranian president Mohammad Khatami by first-time GQ writer Hooman Majd.
People dismiss these lad mags (or, as a friend of mine refers to them, "starter porn.") of which GQ is a grandfather, and this issue doesn't even put a comely lass on the cover, unless you consider Hayden Christensen as such. But, inside these publications are often found some of the most compelling journalism.
The feature article makes the case that Bush and the neo-cons have had a long-term strategy for pacifying the Middle East (and by extension assuring U.S. dominance over dwindling oil reserves) and are now beating the drums to topple Iran. The piece doesn't get into larger questions, like, where are the troops going to come from for such an adventure, and, what about Korea? But I don't think the neo-cons can spin Korea in a manner to whip up fury and hate as they can for Iran. Plus, Iran doesn't have the "nookier" capacity. Yet.
So I don't think you'll need to wait until 2012 for a war with Iran. As one official says toward the piece's end, you have a second-term president with nothing to lose and who leads by "instinct." Thinking that a war isn't inevitable, as he phrases it, "naive."
And I don't even think this'll trigger what some here have been running around shouting about "World War III." I think WWIII is happening now, and it's all about trade and finance, but that's another matter. I mean, who will stop the U.S.? Russia? They'll huff and puff but why, after all, is POTUS over there sidling up to Putin (who resembles to me a conniving Siamese cat, and I say this because I am partly owned by a conniving Siamese cat), Europe won't support it, but that's not yet stopped W. Inc., and the UN will issue denunciations, and the government hasn't lost much sleep over that, either. W. is trying to shore up the flank. The s..t is going to come down on Teheran, and probably sooner than later, just in time for either a hand-picked Republican successor or a luckless Democrat who'll be handed a broken economy and a few intractable wars with which to contend. Gee, thanks, but no thanks.
Here's where your civil unrest may enter into the picture. Let compulsory military service get introduced, and lawsy, you'll hear some howling, and the peacemakers will be denounced as anti-American, indeed, this is happening now. Troops going into Iran won't make many in the U.S. happy, either, but, what are we going to do about it? Who knows? Not me. I'm making no claims toward prescience.
See, if the U.S. could muster it up to have more than one political party, we wouldn't be headed into the abysss just now. So here's my advice, coming by way of my father-in-law who lives in Jackson, Mississppi. Mississippi is near or at the bottom of almost every national indicator. So, he tells me, if the world is heading to Hades, then buy land in Mississippi. It'll be the last to go. That should appeal to the survivalists out there.
And a final somewhat tangential note. Not long after 9/11, the Ayn Rand organization ran a full page ad in the New York Times proclaiming that the U.S. needed to invade Iran, sooner not later, because, they claimed, Iran exports the terrorism and harbors the evil-doers, and etc. Not even the Randers wanted to go into Iraq.
--HEK
Greetings, would-be fellow travelers:
Well, you don't have to wear a conical hat with yellow stars emblazoned on it and stare into a bowl of water, nor examine the entrails of current events and the cyclical nature of the Papacy to predict a future conflict with Iran. You merely have to consult no less a mystical source than.....GQ Magazine.
Thass' right, folks! The May issue features "The Next War Is Closer Than You Think," by Joshua Kurlantzick including an exclusive interview with Iranian president Mohammad Khatami by first-time GQ writer Hooman Majd.
People dismiss these lad mags (or, as a friend of mine refers to them, "starter porn.") of which GQ is a grandfather, and this issue doesn't even put a comely lass on the cover, unless you consider Hayden Christensen as such. But, inside these publications are often found some of the most compelling journalism.
The feature article makes the case that Bush and the neo-cons have had a long-term strategy for pacifying the Middle East (and by extension assuring U.S. dominance over dwindling oil reserves) and are now beating the drums to topple Iran. The piece doesn't get into larger questions, like, where are the troops going to come from for such an adventure, and, what about Korea? But I don't think the neo-cons can spin Korea in a manner to whip up fury and hate as they can for Iran. Plus, Iran doesn't have the "nookier" capacity. Yet.
So I don't think you'll need to wait until 2012 for a war with Iran. As one official says toward the piece's end, you have a second-term president with nothing to lose and who leads by "instinct." Thinking that a war isn't inevitable, as he phrases it, "naive."
And I don't even think this'll trigger what some here have been running around shouting about "World War III." I think WWIII is happening now, and it's all about trade and finance, but that's another matter. I mean, who will stop the U.S.? Russia? They'll huff and puff but why, after all, is POTUS over there sidling up to Putin (who resembles to me a conniving Siamese cat, and I say this because I am partly owned by a conniving Siamese cat), Europe won't support it, but that's not yet stopped W. Inc., and the UN will issue denunciations, and the government hasn't lost much sleep over that, either. W. is trying to shore up the flank. The s..t is going to come down on Teheran, and probably sooner than later, just in time for either a hand-picked Republican successor or a luckless Democrat who'll be handed a broken economy and a few intractable wars with which to contend. Gee, thanks, but no thanks.
Here's where your civil unrest may enter into the picture. Let compulsory military service get introduced, and lawsy, you'll hear some howling, and the peacemakers will be denounced as anti-American, indeed, this is happening now. Troops going into Iran won't make many in the U.S. happy, either, but, what are we going to do about it? Who knows? Not me. I'm making no claims toward prescience.
See, if the U.S. could muster it up to have more than one political party, we wouldn't be headed into the abysss just now. So here's my advice, coming by way of my father-in-law who lives in Jackson, Mississppi. Mississippi is near or at the bottom of almost every national indicator. So, he tells me, if the world is heading to Hades, then buy land in Mississippi. It'll be the last to go. That should appeal to the survivalists out there.
And a final somewhat tangential note. Not long after 9/11, the Ayn Rand organization ran a full page ad in the New York Times proclaiming that the U.S. needed to invade Iran, sooner not later, because, they claimed, Iran exports the terrorism and harbors the evil-doers, and etc. Not even the Randers wanted to go into Iraq.
--HEK
