Quote :

"On Track for U.S. Collapse by Michael S. Rozeff, October 27, 2007 Bush and Cheney are steering the U.S. into a collapse. Only strong public voices by influential people can prevent the coming disaster. We desperately need for men and women who are known to the public and have credibility to speak up in the critical period ahead to avoid catastrophe. A few weeks ago, Israel bombed a alleged nuclear facility in Syria. This is a warm-up for an attack on Iran. In the last few days, the U.S. unilaterally tightened sanctions on Iran. Russia and China do not support this move. A week ago Bush warned Iran that its attainment of nuclear arms would lead to World War III. Russia, which has been assisting Iran in its nuclear construction program for decades, regards Western military action against Iran as unacceptable. China has been arming Iran with missiles. Its relations with Iran have been improving for years. We know that Bush and Cheney are capable of pre-emptive attack. We know that Bush will act if he believes he is right no matter what the costs are. In his distorted worldview, Iran with nuclear weapons is a scenario worth any cost to avoid. We know that Bush, Cheney, and Rice have repeatedly warned Iran of meaningful consequences if Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. We know that their terms in office end in 15 months. These are the critical months. But it is by no means clear that the front-running candidates for office who may replace them hold substantially different views. Hillary Clinton has publicly called for sanctions against Iran and has called Iran a threat to Israel. Why may an unprovoked attack on Iran lead to WWIII and why may it lead to the collapse of the U.S.? Imagine this scenario. The U.S. encourages Israel to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Russia attempts to restrain an Iranian response but fails. Iran responds in any of many ways, such as launching missiles on Israel, firing on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, mining the Straits of Hormuz, sending troops into Iraq, or allying its military with Hezbollah and attacking Israel from Lebanon. The U.S., citing Iran’s aggressions (that will be the story), launches a full-scale attack on Iran designed to devastate the country. This attack has actually been planned by the U.S. for years. Syria is unable to maintain neutrality and quickly becomes a battleground between Iran and Israel. The price of oil by this point has already soared to $200 a barrel. The U.S. begins to use its strategic reserve and to divert Iraqi production. Russia responds by taking steps to prevent its oil production from reaching the U.S. China responds by cutting off its support of the U.S. Treasury market. Venezuela halts oil shipments to the U.S. The first stages of WWIII are economic warfare designed to cripple the U.S. and halt its war-making capacity. The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce. The U.S. attempts to bolster its military forces. The draft is reinstated. The severity of the emergency allows Bush and Cheney to assume emergency powers and begin a dictatorship. Elections are postponed. The U.S. collapses. Unfortunately, even if this scenario does not occur, the position of the U.S. is so precarious that any number of other scenarios equally disastrous lie in wait. This house needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system. Who can stop this? Who can prevent this? It will only take a few well-placed people to prevent this catastrophe. My guess is 5–20 people could sway public opinion against war or provide enough cover for Congressional dissenters to screw up their courage. Maybe even as few as 3 or 4 influential people could derail the Bush-Cheney train to disaster. They need to speak out at the right times and they must be heard. Previously mute or muted voices simply must speak out. They know who they are. They know that their silence will mean silent approval of a U.S. collapse. Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. "

Most of the world thought the U.S. Civil War was our doomsday scenerio...So I don't know.

10/27/2007 10:51:09 AM

Dude, invading Cuba or some other little ass island would doom the US, let alone Iran. Incase you haven't noticed...the US is stretched very thin as it is.

10/27/2007 11:36:02 AM

The issue isn't that we're stretched thin militarily. I don't know how small you think the US Armed forces are, but that's not the issue. There are a number of other factors that make it seem that way, however.

---

The United States will not attack Iran unless Iran does something remarkably more belligerent than what it has been doing. We will also not attempt to provoke Iran into such action, as described in your fantasy scenario. I will bet my freedom in the form of enlisting if either event happens, that's how confident I am.

10/27/2007 12:32:58 PM

That article is idiotic, as are most articles that contain "Imagine this scenario."

10/27/2007 2:26:29 PM

I cant believe I wasted my life reading that article.

10/27/2007 2:27:11 PM

^

10/27/2007 2:40:27 PM

Quote :

" The issue isn't that we're stretched thin militarily. I don't know how small you think the US Armed forces are, but that's not the issue. "

The army can't support an invasion of Iran without a draft. Regardless of the political situation, this is the main [real] issue with regards to war with Iran.

10/27/2007 3:16:42 PM

Quote :

"The issue isn't that we're stretched thin militarily. I don't know how small you think the US Armed forces are, but that's not the issue. There are a number of other factors that make it seem that way, however."

The US can have enough infantry to send to 3 fronts, 2 in which are major invasions (iran/iraq) but they'll be stretching themselves very thin when it comes to $$$ and supplies. You cant fight a successful war without adequate supplies for your troops.

Not to mention the last country the US invaded is now in total chaos and there is no end for that.

Plus this isn't WWII anymore. You don't have fronts to push back and forth or a capital city to march on. You will have insurgents popping up every where between Iran and Iraq.

However, you could compare this to WWII in terms of the US is now Germany and Iran/Iraq is Poland and France. These people don't want to be occupied by American troops any more or less than the Polish or French.

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ...]

10/27/2007 4:22:21 PM

yeah and look how easily the polish and french took what was given to them

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : Iraq/Iran don't have a USA#1 to come save them at the last minute]

10/27/2007 4:26:56 PM

Iraq/Iran's "USA #1" are the insurgents and Islamic extremists. What do you think these Islamic extremists have been fighting for all this time in the modern age? They want to liberate, if you will, the Arab world from the infidels.

From a WWII comparison. France and Poland and the rest of Europe is Iran/Iraq and Germany is the USA. and USA in WWII is now the militants and extremists. Interesting how the tables have turned and the good guys are now projected as the bad guys. In Arab eyes at least.


*Islamic extremists and Islam in general does not represent my opinion or point of view.

10/27/2007 4:48:41 PM

Sanctions and support to the pro-west revolutionary movements are the way to deal with iran

10/27/2007 4:52:16 PM

We should force Iranians to hold truly democratic elections.

it worked for us regarding Lebanon.

10/27/2007 6:56:59 PM

Quote :

"The U.S. attempts to bolster its military forces. The draft is reinstated. The severity of the emergency allows Bush and Cheney to assume emergency powers and begin a dictatorship. Elections are postponed."

good fucking lord. it was pretty bad before it got to that point, and then that shit came up. jeez.

Quote :

"We should force Iranians to hold truly democratic elections. "

We should quit fucking around in the middle east. It worked before we started fucking around in the middle east

10/27/2007 9:53:52 PM

Quote :

"We should quit fucking around in the middle east. It worked before we started fucking around in the middle east "

We can't really do that now. It's too late.

iran, Afghanistan, and now Iraq are irrevocably changed because of our actions. If we ignored them, it would just cause resentment to fester against us. We have to do something, but that something has to make them like use, not hate us.

10/27/2007 10:00:47 PM

^ actually, it's not too late. every iraqi that dies at the hands of a US citizen or as a result of his actions is seen as a martyr. the more iraqis that die, the more martyrs.

furthermore, you argue that "we can't stop now, it'll get worse." what the fuck makes you think that we're gonna "get it right this time?" Look at what we've done over there: Israel, the Shah, Iran/Contra, Saddam, Al Qaeda. Really, do you think we are going to magically do something correct this time?

There is NOTHING we can do now that will make those people like us. NOTHING. If Iraq goes great, they will hate us. If Iraq collapses into a shit hole, they will hate us. It's the same end no matter what. So, why the fuck don't we just get the hell out of there and let what is gonna happen over there happen?

10/27/2007 10:09:36 PM

i want to say one thing in defense of bush and cheney:

IT'S NOT JUST THEM. CONGRESS IS DOING NOTHING TO CHECK THEM, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS DOING NOTHING TO CHECK THEM EITHER.

this has become more and more clear to me (at least regarding the judicial branch) as i've continued to read Takeover by Charlie Savage. You can get mad at bush and cheney for being dicks about this, but you've GOT to hold the people who are supposed to CHECK THEM responsible.

so instead of directing my anger at them i'm going to say this:

FUCK CONGRESS AND FUCK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, at least currently

10/27/2007 10:10:29 PM

Quote :

"That article is idiotic,"

Fair enough..

...but I would agree that we are getting stretched pretty thin with this whole Bringing-Democracy-to-the-Middle-East project.

We probably have the technology to open another front, but the expenses would too much. We're already living off of Chinese benevolence in regard to our debt. Taxes or Inflation would have to go sky-high to pay for more war.

Haven't most great empires vanished more due to bankruptcy than anything else?

10/27/2007 10:43:29 PM

that's the problem, we're trying to build an empire

10/27/2007 10:50:12 PM

So? The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to wage war without wrecking its domestic economy (Korea and Vietnam) so I don't see how anything we do today short of provoking and losing a world war could cause "doom". Sure, we lose face, face terrorism, and everyone hates us, but none of that is a threat to the nation's existence.

Not even war with China could produce the end of the U.S. as a cohesive nation.

^^ Eliminate Social Security and we could afford several more Iraq wars without debt.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/28/2007 12:51:02 AM

Quote :

"Sure, we lose face, face terrorism, and everyone hates us, but none of that is a threat to the nation's existence. Not even war with China could produce the end of the U.S. as a cohesive nation."

That seems like a shortsighted way of looking at things. It won't immediately lead to doom, but it would very assuredly put us on that path.

Our military strength is the main thing keeping us on top right now. Other countries are just starting to develop their own countries and educational and economic systems, which means, among many other things, they're going to starting doing research in to weapons and such, including nuclear weapons. If we destabilize the balance of powers in the world, the likelihood of some terrorist group flipping out and using a nuke increases. And the nuke wouldn't have to be used here. Used anywhere near our allies, and things are going to get hairy.

It will only come to this point though if the terrorist groups feel completely hopeless in their cause, because hopeless people do crazy things.

10/28/2007 1:35:16 AM

The SMARTEST most REALISTIC and most HUMANE thing ever said in the Soap Box by anyone, and that even by aaronburro:

Quote :

"^ actually, it's not too late. every iraqi that dies at the hands of a US citizen or as a result of his actions is seen as a martyr. the more iraqis that die, the more martyrs. furthermore, you argue that "we can't stop now, it'll get worse." what the fuck makes you think that we're gonna "get it right this time?" Look at what we've done over there: Israel, the Shah, Iran/Contra, Saddam, Al Qaeda. Really, do you think we are going to magically do something correct this time? There is NOTHING we can do now that will make those people like us. NOTHING. If Iraq goes great, they will hate us. If Iraq collapses into a shit hole, they will hate us. It's the same end no matter what. So, why the fuck don't we just get the hell out of there and let what is gonna happen over there happen?"

10/28/2007 3:45:03 AM

Quote :

"Eliminate Social Security and we could afford several more Iraq wars without debt. "

^^ You're an idiot. More like... if we eliminate the Iraq War then we could easily pay for Social Security without debt, a much more useful way of spending the money. We could also afford things like better education, better space program, better infrastructure. I hope all the idiots who complain about high taxes realize that the Pentagon takes up half of the budget of the US Government because they're usually the ones who are first to want to go to war. If you're a warhawk you're not allowed to complain about taxes because wars cost money!

10/28/2007 8:01:29 AM

Quote :

"Used anywhere near our allies, and things are going to get hairy."

My point is not that things cannot go to shit. But what does everyone mean by "Doom" and "Collapse"? A terrorist nuke being detonated in New York City will not bring about the end of American Civilization. The myth of America is too ingrained. A world war will start, sure, life will suck for everyone alive. But everyone will not die, we will rebuild. This is America afterall.

^ You're an odd one. Are you suggesting that if we had not Invaded Iraq the U.S. would have eliminated its entire defense budget?

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 8:48 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/28/2007 8:46:51 AM

If this was 1830 you'd be one of those people that believes in Manifest Destiny. In contemporary times, however, you are just dumb.

10/28/2007 8:49:56 AM

Really? did terrorists have a lot of nukes back in 1830?

10/28/2007 9:36:01 AM

Quote :

"The United States will not attack Iran unless Iran does something remarkably more belligerent than what it has been doing. We will also not attempt to provoke Iran into such action, a"

kinda like how Saddam was belligerent in the months prior to the 2003 invasion

10/28/2007 9:41:34 AM

^^ The point was, America is not some holy country that will remain together just because we're America. There are things that can tear us apart. With the vast differences in regions of the country and the territory that we cover it's not hard to imagine the country breaking apart at some point in time. That being said, I don't think the country is going to do that any time soon, but to say that it will never happen just because "the myth of America is too ingrained" is on par with the ignorance a lot of people showed with the concept of Manifest Destiny.

10/28/2007 9:46:44 AM

yes

10/28/2007 10:00:38 AM

^^ In my opinion you read too much into my statement. I simply said that nuking New York would not tear the country apart. I did not say the myth was magically all powerful, just that it could stand up to something as mundane as a world war.

Now, if you started yourself a second American civil war then maybe you have a shot at overpowering belief, but I know of no issue that could start such a conflict beyond maintaining the union itself. In a sense, it would be a civil war between two factions, both of which are trying to maintain the union, they just disagree on how.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/28/2007 10:51:03 AM

I think another World War would inherently contain nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare = end of civilization, basically. So this is a path that we should definitely not even consider going down.

10/28/2007 11:00:46 AM

Quote :

"So? The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to wage war without wrecking its domestic economy (Korea and Vietnam) so I don't see how anything we do today short of provoking and losing a world war could cause "doom". Sure, we lose face, face terrorism, and everyone hates us, but none of that is a threat to the nation's existence."

Vietnam is nothing like Iraq. Besides...the US lost that war and every war its been involved in since WWII.

10/28/2007 11:25:04 AM

^ Please edit that post before someone posts an insignificant war that we had no real chance of losing to refute it.

10/28/2007 11:26:21 AM

^like? Military operations in South America aren't wars...and even then, those didn't turn out in US favor.

Somalia? no
Vietnam? no
Korea? no
Desert Storm? no
Bosnia? no

feel free to add to the list.

10/28/2007 11:29:25 AM

Korea wasn't a loss. Desert Storm was a win. I don't know anything about Bosnia, but I don't think we lost that one either.

10/28/2007 11:34:33 AM

The thing about war in this era is that even when you "win," you lose.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/28/2007 11:47:22 AM

But "winning" is still better than straight up losing any day.

10/28/2007 11:49:20 AM

This thread should be renamed "Building Nuclear Weapons could doom Iran ??"

10/28/2007 12:33:42 PM

we couldn't fight a civil war in 3 days.

friday is high school football
saturday is college football
sunday is pro football
and monday night is monday night football

so there could be no civil war

10/28/2007 12:36:00 PM

Or we could just fight the Civil War through football... But then BC would win the college championship and New England would win the Super Bowl so fuck that.

10/28/2007 12:45:58 PM

Quote :

"Vietnam is nothing like Iraq"

You are right. Compared to Vietnam, Iraq has been cheap and bloodless. During the week before 18 February in 1967 more Americans were killed in Vietnam than die in a year of the Iraq War (some exceptions).

10/28/2007 1:16:25 PM

There are less casualties in Iraq, but the number of wounded is pretty high. No war is cheap or bloodless.

10/28/2007 1:22:20 PM

Quote :

"^^ The point was, America is not some holy country that will remain together just because we're America. There are things that can tear us apart. With the vast differences in regions of the country and the territory that we cover it's not hard to imagine the country breaking apart at some point in time."

yea it is

Quote :

"If you're a warhawk you're not allowed to complain about taxes because wars cost money! "

bears repeating

10/28/2007 1:46:40 PM

^Romans thought the same about their empire. Same can be said about every empire/civilization in history.

Where are they now?

Civilizations are like waves. You are a fool to think the USA as we know it will last forever.

10/28/2007 4:16:29 PM

You are equally a fool to believe the USA as we know it will cease to exist within a generation or two.

That said.

The U.S. is not an empire in the classical sense. Texans are not currently being occupied by New Yorkers; they are both simply Americans. As such, there is no battle between peoples being raged to either maintain or break up the country. As such, the only way for it to cease to exist is to be conquered from outside, not bloody likely for many reasons, most important of which being the lack of empire building states. "Land" as a strategic resource has been largely discredited during the 20th century. While China may be willing to risk war to reclaim its own territory (Taiwan), no one seriously believes the Chinese people would be made better off by invading and occupying Japan. Similarly, invading and occupying California just is not worth anything to anyone else.

Reigning philosophy can change, maybe Texans will want out of the Republic in the next generation. Similarly, as the rents accruing to resource holders increases, the urge to take them from other nations will also increase, but I'll believe it when I see it. The idiological vision of rich westerners and poor 3rd worlders is quite strong.

10/28/2007 4:45:09 PM

Did i give a time span, dumbass? no.

10/28/2007 4:48:31 PM

^^ I agree, we will not fall in an invasion. If we fall at all, it will be economically, but that won't happen for a very long time because the American enterprise is a pretty well oiled machine.

Guns per person in America is something like 12. It'd be hell on earth for an invading army.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/28/2007 4:53:34 PM

^anything more than 1 gun per person is useless in your statement. Unless you want to duel wield halo style.

10/28/2007 5:00:33 PM

^^ some motherfuckers must be stockpiliing some freakin ARSENALS, because theres a helluva LOT of people who have no guns

10/28/2007 5:22:14 PM

Quote :

"^Romans thought the same about their empire. Same can be said about every empire/civilization in history. Where are they now? Civilizations are like waves. You are a fool to think the USA as we know it will last forever."

the modern world is a hell of a lot more stable

and frankly I think it's pointless to worry what could happen in five hundred to a thousand years in the future

10/28/2007 6:54:19 PM

Quote :

"Romans thought the same about their empire. Same can be said about every empire/civilization in history."

i think that in order to fix our problems alot of people at the top would lose power and wealth, the problem is that the people on top are in power, and the only solutions they accept are the ones that keep them in power

10/28/2007 7:32:14 PM