In my opinion, it is very likely, sadly.

 

Let's just all hope that January 2009 comes before Bush can do any more damage to the U.S. or to the world in general.

USA cant be some  "glory winner"  in the war against Iran because Russia is too strong in this moment,  strongest than ever  before and Russia is very  very friendly to Iran today.

what about unconquered Russian S-400 anti-aircrafts and anti-rockets systems already ordered at high mountains in Iran, for example? any succesful (conventional) U.S. Air Force attack (s) is impossible. what to do ?  get to use a nuke stuff only because Zionists are desirous to steal that crude oil from Iran? this is a crazy idea at all, IMHO. 

 

 

Dude, Canada could be invaded by California.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm interested in the opinions of some of our Israeli members, because IMO Israel will probably make the first move, thus drawing in the US and any other ally, because Iran and to a lesser extent Syria and Lebanon are going to explode...double entendre.

 

Right on. Totally depleted. A prolonged war is always a curse. But preventive strikes against their nuclear facilities are possible.

 

It's ridiculous

 

I think that should be our new national anthem. 

 

I wonder if Tony is watching. 

 

Always.

 

1.   We will soon have new political leadership and it is extremely unlikely it will be someone who is interested in starting another war.

 

2.  Our military is already stretched to the breaking point in fulfilling our overseas comittments.

 

3.  No other country is likely to join in such an effort.

 

4.  Iran will not provoke a war.   It's goal is to present us with a nuclear fait accompli.

There is still over 1 year of Bush, if I'm not mistaken the next US presidential elections is scheduled for the 4th of November 2008.

 

ghost_of_morphy wrote: 2.  Our military is already stretched to the breaking point in fulfilling our overseas comittments.

You still have a few thousand active nuclear warheads.

 

ghost_of_morphy wrote: 3.  No other country is likely to join in such an effort.

Israel.

 

ghost_of_morphy wrote: 4.  Iran will not provoke a war.   It's goal is to present us with a nuclear fait accompli.

 

Alright. But for the purpose of our discussion it was the same war.

Blacksword wrote: As a footnote I would also say that the collapse of capitilism is on the cards too. Our system relies on sustained constant growth in a world where resources are finite. This is a major factor in determining where the next war will go. Basically, when the pantry is bare, we will all start fighting over the crumbs.. Good luck.

_popupControl();

What makes you think so? How finite are the resources you’re referring to?

 

 

 

Blacksword wrote: Finite resources include not just gas, oil and coal. Climate change could make water and food scarce for long periods of time in certain parts of the world. We will see huge population exodous; fleeing famine, and regional conflicts ignited by regional scrambles for resource and land. It's also not just a matter of dwindling resources, but who is controlling them. A resurgent Russia controls the gas supply to much of Europe. I cant see this situation remaining acceptable to the EU in the longer run, and the situation is already set against a backdrop of worsening relations with Moscow, especially on the part of Britain.

_popupControl(); And I consider myself a pessimist!

A sudden change of climate may devastate crops as it happened in the 18^th century. (If you allude to the global warming scare, the jury is still out. Besides, some measures are being taken to fight it, so it wouldn’t count as something sudden.) Here you echo Malthus in a way. His predictions haven’t materialized yet because he didn’t take into account technological progress in general and in agriculture in particular. He simply could not imagine the level it would be at today. I think you too underestimate it.

Western Europe depends on Russian energy supplies for the past 40 years at least. And the relations couldn’t be worse at the peak of the cold war during the 70’s and early 80’s, yet the gas and oil kept flowing freely from the east. The beauty of the situation is that Russia depends on Europe too. Natural resources is the only thing they can trade in to survive. The Russian “resurgence” is tied to the price of oil, and within the next 6-7 years, as the overall prices will creep up to mach that of oil, the current Russian resurgence will be over. As far as I know they don’t take advantage of the situation, and instead of reinvesting in their economy, they squander their petro-dollars.

Blacksword wrote: It's my belief that within the 20 to fifty years the west will 'swap' economies with India and China. This is one of the reasons the US will not sign up to any firm carbon emission cutting targets. They know their Chinese and Indian counterparts - who also refuse - will achieve an economic edge on them very quickly. You may argue that resources will not deplete for centuries yet, but I dont think this takes into account global population growth, and the rate of economic growth, in Asia in the shorter term.

_popupControl();

20 years is an awful lot of time by today’s measures. I don’t try to see that far ahead. For the past 120-140 years America (with Japan and Europe following closely) is in the lead because we create and use advanced technology which we provide to the rest of the world. If this trend continues (and I hope it will) the “swap” with India and China may not happen. As per the depletion of the resources, it’s hard to predict when we will run out as huge areas of Siberia, Canada, South America have not been developed yet. Besides, you ignore technology again.

Blacksword wrote: In short we face a choice, in the west. Retain control of resources or lose them to India, China and Russia. I think I know what our leaders will choose to do. It's just a matter of time. Around 25% of the worlds oil is supplied by Iran. China alone gets 13% of its supply from Iran. The US will inevitably seek to control this supply, as they have done with Iraqs. Iran have recently confirmed that they will trade their oil in Euros as from next year, as opposed to USD. This is a big blow for the US, and possibly increases their urgency to topple the Iranian leadership.

_popupControl();

We pump about 25% of oil we use. A big chunk of the remaining 75% comes from Canada and Venezuela. The rest comes from the Saudis, Kuwait, and the Emirates. The US imposed an embargo on trade with Iran in 1979. So far Iran suffers from it more than the US. Iran produces about 10% of world’s oil. Their periodical threats to switch to other currencies are nothing new, and if they really do, it will hurt them even more. Only a madman can bet on the present strength of the Euro to stay forever as European governments have proven time and again to bloat their money supply to cover the expenses of their welfare states. They will most likely match the current fall of the dollar (caused by the war btw) with their own within the next 6-7 years as history shows. As the Iraqi war clearly demonstrates, occupying a foreign country is prohibitively expensive. So considering all of the above, why do you think the US action against Iran is inevitable? Again I’m not talking 20 years from now as the situation may change to warrant such action, but rather in the next 2-3 years. Of course, anything is possible, but it would be suicidal to start another prolonged war right now.