Stand Up For America

War with Iran

Black Flag® — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:52:12 +0000

I re-post this here so to solicit comments and discussions about the topic.

After reading this piece – a piece that I am in great agreement with – I am very disturbed.

Rozeff articulates in this essay parts of my Theory of Hegemony, where I suggest that it is always the actions of the Hegemonic power that is the causation to political events and not the Weaker power – the Weaker power always and only can react to the actions of the Hegemonic power, and cannot be the cause.

Therefore, just as he points out, whether there is war or not is completely dependent on the action of the US/Israel.

And – as also he points out – those that are charged with the rational calculation of losses are not, themselves, at risk in such a war.

Therefore, I believe There will be War.

When Might War Between the U.S. and Iran Occur?

by Michael S. Rozeff

Which state, the U.S. or Iran, more likely wants a war with the other? It’s the side that thinks it benefits from such a war. That side is the U.S. If this war begins, it will be entirely because the U.S. wants it and has decided that the time is right to instigate it or elicit actions from Iran that provide excuses for instigating it. Any U.S.-Iran war will be entirely the doing of the U.S.

Here’s how we know this.

Iran has nothing to gain because it will lose such a war, its power being so much less than the U.S.

This is why Iran has tolerated, so far and to a remarkable degree, the intrusions of U.S. subversions and covert activities in Iran, the assassinations of scientists, the computer disruptions, the embargos, the sanctions, the U.S. warships, the U.S. threats, and the U.S. troops being placed nearby.

By contrast, the U.S., in the view of the neoconservatives who are running foreign policy, stands to gain quite a lot, namely, undisputed hegemony over the Middle East, control of a country perched on central Asia, control of oil, support for Israel, and a rise in global dominance more generally.

Therefore, when and if such a war starts, no matter by what incidents it is triggered, we can be 100% certain that the U.S. has caused and precipitated this war because it, not Iran, is the state that foresees the benefits of such a war.

There are costs, however, and these are restraining the U.S. from instigating this war at this time. These include war costs of several kinds, since Iran is not a pushover. Iran, if pushed into a war by the U.S., can respond in nearby regions, such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and the Persian Gulf. It can conceivably draw Russia into the war, or perhaps Pakistan. The U.S. will win a war with Iran, but it does not expect an easy win. If it did, it would already have started the war. The war on Libya was a recent warm-up exercise that shows what air power can do in this day and age, but Iran’s forces are more formidable.

We can expect that military advisors to the U.S. will tend to be against war with Iran because of these costs, but that under enough pressure they will yield. Another cost is that oil will rise in price steeply, and this will derail economic activity in Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere. Economic advisors to the U.S. will tend to be against war with Iran for this reason, but they too will yield under enough pressure because, like the military leaders, their positions are secure and others will bear the responsibility of starting such a war.

The U.S. will attempt to restrain Israel from causing a war on its own until the U.S. leadership thinks that these costs have become bearable and/or that the U.S. is in a position to beat Iran rather quickly and not have to endure a long war.

Since Iran does not want war with the U.S. and since its forces are what are deterring the U.S., Iran has a powerful incentive to build up its military forces in ways that deter the U.S. and make an easy victory unlikely. This is why Iran issues threats of its own, so that the U.S. will think twice and continue to hold off from attacking Iran, which Washington is ready to do as soon as it thinks the costs of doing so are bearable. This is why Iran continues to develop its missile capabilities. This is also why it makes sense for Iran to take the necessary preparatory steps toward developing a nuclear warhead that can be carried on a missile. No doubt it understands how to manufacture a nuclear bomb and has come a long way in understanding how to ignite explosives simultaneously so as to create the nuclear explosion within. The U.S., in a very real way, is causing Iran to pursue this nuclear development course if only to prevent a U.S. attack and to preserve its own power as a state. And certainly the sanctions imposed by the West for many years now and the concurrent threat of U.S. attack are causing Iran to bolster its military forces so as to deter the U.S.

And so when might war break out between the U.S. and Iran? It depends on this balance of costs that the U.S. bears and that depends on actions by Iran. But this is all assuming rationality in the war-making process. It is possible at any time that a leader in Washington or in Israel will cast aside rational calculation and decide that now is the time or the time has come, or make a decision based on some trivial detail or happenstance or incident whose significance he or she mis-estimates. Similarly, it is possible that Iran’s leadership will miscalculate or perceive themselves as being backed into a corner where war is the only way out.

The U.S. keeps raising the ante, and that dashes hopes for an eventual peaceful resolution. There is no way that Iran can appease the U.S. If it gives in on one thing, the U.S. will simply demand more and then more and more. The U.S. behavior toward Gaddafi shows what happens when a weak state attempts to cooperate with the U.S. Iran will not do likewise. Its leaders are on record as recognizing U.S. behavior going back for decades. They will not back down. The only hope for a continued standoff is, ironically, that Iran make itself strong enough to deter the U.S. and Israel.

RIP Joe

USWeapon — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:26:40 +0000

More Open mic

Life of Illusion — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:15:56 +0000

How’s That Government Meddling Workin’ Out for Ya’?

By Richard N. Weltz

Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union an agricultural commissar from the Ukraine was summoned to the Agricultural Ministry in Moscow to report on the year’s potato crop. “Ah, Comrade Minister,” said the commissar, beaming, “If all the potatoes harvested this year were put into a single pile, it would reach to the feet of God.”

“What!” exclaimed the minister, “you know that in Communism there is no God.”

“Also,” sighed the commissar, “in the Ukraine is no potatoes.”

JAC’s Blank Page

Life of Illusion — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:52:35 +0000

Sounded more interesting than open mic….

It Couldn’t Be Because You Suck….

USWeapon — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:24:25 +0000

Another day, another claim from a Democrat that opposition to someone is surely based on the fact that they are not white. Eric Holder, embattled Attorney General, gave an interview to the New York Times. I read the interview and was utterly shocked (sarcasm mode activated) to find that he believes the criticism of his actions while Attorney General are based on the fact that he is black. I don’t want to make this about Democrats and Republicans, but this has been, overwhelmingly, a tactic employed by the Obama administration and the Democrats over and over again throughout the last three years. And it isn’t going to stop until they face the backlash that they should face for it.

To be fair, Holder didn’t claim race was the factor for all his critics. He merely said that it was the motivating factor for the “extreme” ones. Of course, according to the Obama administration, nearly anyone opposed to their agenda is considered “extreme.” Veterans returning from combat, Tea Party protestors, GOP candidates and members of Congress, they have all been called extreme by the left. So I guess Holder only thinks GOP folks, returning veterans, and Tea Party members are racist. The rest of the country is fine, except the ones who are not smart enough to not be “tricked” into agreeing with those extremists.

I have news for you, Mr. Holder. The reason people have been so critical of you is because you are a liar, you use the office you hold as a political weapon, and you generally suck as the Attorney General.

Let’s start with Fast and Furious. We all know the deal here. Anyone who claims that the Attorney General didn’t know what was going on is either lying to themselves or has an IQ somewhere in the double digits coupled with a complete lack of understanding of how things work. That doesn’t mean that he knew every detail, but he was aware of the program. No program like that could exist without his approval. If it did, then he is incompetent and shouldn’t be in the office in the first place. And for him to go in front of the country and claim that he wasn’t aware is a blatant lie that most of us have the ability to see right through.

Then there are the plethora of lawsuits brought forth from his office standing in the way of states enforcing immigration laws on the premise that they are the federal government’s domain, while simultaneously refusing to enforce the federal laws that you claim trump the state’s action. Here’s the deal: If you don’t like the laws then go to Congress and have them changed. But you don’t get to just ignore them. That isn’t how the law works. This radical idea that as Attorney General, you get to pick and choose which laws you enforce and which ones you blatantly ignore is downright criminal. There are lots of laws I don’t like. If I was President, I would work to have them repealed.

The only thing that is worse than the Attorney General refusing to enforce federal law while refusing to allow states to act in their own interests, is this ridiculous fascination that the left has with painting all immigration law as overtly racist and meant to allow racial profiling. If you are foreign and cannot speak english, I don’t think it is a stretch to ask to see some form of proof that you are here legally. It isn’t racism, it is common sense, something people in the political spectrum, politicians and media folks alike, both seem to have skipped school the day they issued it.

And let’s not forget the blatant attempt on election day by the Black Panthers to intimidate voters. Despite the obvious guilt, the Attorney General decided not to prosecute. That one still just sits with me in a very wrong way.

But this is about more than just the Attorney General making yet another claim of racism. This is about the fact that the left in America (and I am sorry to paint it as one side, but let’s face facts, the right doesn’t use this “racism” tactic very often) has resorted to claiming racism on every single issue where they are losing the debate. I mean the list is endless…

Katrina wasn’t about FEMA’s incompetence, it was that George Bush hates black people.
Arizona wasn’t trying to protect its citizens and solve its problems, they hate Mexicans.
A verbally abusive and arrogant professor wasn’t arrested for being so, he was arrested because he was black.
The birther madness wasn’t about a President proving he is qualified to hold the office, it was racism.
20 years listening to a man that says “God Damn America?” If you have a problem with it you are a racist.
Opposed to the President’s Supreme Court selections? You are racist AND hate women.
Fed up with high taxes and big government? Join the racist Tea Party.
Heck even at SUFA, support capitalism or the founding fathers? Then you hate native Americans and want to return to slavery.

This is nothing but a diversionary tactic employed by those who cannot win the debates on the merits of their position. Emotional rhetoric is a staple of politics (on both sides), and it is a horrible development. It shows the shallowness of the person using the tactics position. If you want a proper gauge of the strength of a person’s position, you merely need to clock how quickly these emotional ploys are employed. The earlier they are employed, the weaker the argument of the employer.

The emotional ploys need to stop. But even more important, we need to all agree to condemn these constant claims of racism where they don’t belong. They are the most disgusting form of political tactic that can be used. Sadly, they are also some of the most effective. Besides the fact that they are baseless and desperate, they delegitimize the claims made when actual racism occurs. When every argument ends up with someone being called a racist, the claim begins to lose its power. Then when it is really occurring, many people will simply tune out the second the word racist is mentioned. You can only cry wolf so many times.

The reality is that there are racists in America. However, the election of Barack Obama, despite the claims to the contrary, completely debunks the claim that it is rampant in America. You can’t get over half the vote in the country if the majority of people are racists. Millions and millions of white people voted for Obama, and they didn’t do it out of “white guilt”. They did it because they didn’t care about the color of his skin. They cared about what his positions were.

And millions of people voted against Barack Obama. The vast majority of them voted that way not because of the color of his skin, but because they don’t believe that his vision for America is a healthy one. I am one of those people. I have never been a racist. I just think the left’s plan for America is horrendous. But I am sure tired of being labeled a racist because I don’t believe in his vision. I am tired of being told I support slavery because I happen to think that at its core, the Constitution was a good attempt at creating a great societal set-up.

If you are one of those employing the race card during political discourse, stop it. It makes you a douchebag. And worse, it makes you a very large part of the problem when it comes to race relations in America.

Further, it makes it so that when the wolves really do come, I won’t be there to help defend you.

Merry Christmas to All

USWeapon — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 04:55:34 +0000

Hello all my SUFA friends and family!! I imagine that you have all assumed that I dropped off of a cliff and some of the regulars are taking the time to build a workable robot to replace me. You would think that with the Black Flag computer program we would already have the initially planning completed! The truth is that I have been extremely busy over the last month or two. I owe a great debt for LOI and others who have realistically been the voice and heart of SUFA when I have been unable to. I cannot promise that my schedule will let up just yet, but I do have a few things to say…

First of all, I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. For those who don’t celebrate Christmas, I wish you a happy holiday season. I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am for each and every one of you who have frequented SUFA over the years and shared your wisdom, your ideas, and your angst with me. I look forward to the future and what will come next. I don’t know what will come next, which is a post that is coming soon, so stay tuned.

But rest assured, whatever is next, SUFA isn’t going anywhere. I value too much the thoughts and debates that occur here. So to all of you, Thank You for another great year at SUFA and please everyone have a wonderful day today with your friends, family, and loved ones.

Now from me… A few of my favorite Christmas Jams from the wonderful world of 1980′s rap!

And one of my favorite performers (Just ignore the stupid Obama ad that pops up, it doesn’t last long)

Open Mic, Chapter 7

Life of Illusion — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:22:18 +0000

Atonement, Quotas and Self-Destruction

Looking back, we discover that most societies have at one time disadvantaged some of their constituent groups. This could happen by ignoring them, by denying their potential, or by active discrimination. If discrimination, negative, or positive is proven, then democratic principles demand rectification.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4883

Happy Hanukkah!

Life of Illusion — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:35:42 +0000

The eight-day Jewish celebration known as Hanukkah or Chanukah commemorates the rededication during the second century B.C. of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, where according to legend Jews had risen up against their Greek-Syrian oppressors in the Maccabean Revolt. Hanukkah, which means “dedication” in Hebrew, begins on the 25th of Kislev on the Hebrew calendar and usually falls in November or December. Often called the Festival of Lights, the holiday is celebrated with the lighting of the menorah, traditional foods, games and gifts.

Open Mic extended

Life of Illusion — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:51:44 +0000

KUHNER: Obama’s Watergate

Officials cover up culpability for gun smuggling and murder

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner– The Washington Times –Thursday, December 15, 2011

A year ago this week, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. He died protecting his country from brutal Mexican gangsters. Two AK-47 assault rifles were found at his death site. We now know the horrifying truth: Agent Terry was killed by weapons that were part of an illegal Obama administration operation to smuggle arms to the dangerous drug cartels. He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to the White House, implicating senior officials. It is President Obama’s Watergate.

Documents: ATF used “Fast and Furious” to make the case for gun regulations

Life of Illusion — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:43:23 +0000

Would the Progressive faction of the Democratic Party knowingly allow criminals to buy thousands of guns that otherwise would have been denied just to support their agenda for more gun control? The ATF instructed several gun dealers to make sales they knew were illegal. They told them to ignore(break) the law to assist them in tracking the guns…..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/