Tuesday, October 06, 2009

The Road To Afghanistan is Paved With Good Intentions

The headline to this thread was written with the idea that Afghanistan is hell and there are many who have good intentions on fighting the war to win.

However, a war in Afghanistan, right now, will pave-the-way to a nuclear Iran or an escalation in the war in the Middle East if Israel is forced to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

It is stated here on this site again, as has been stated on previous threads here, here, here and here; the war in Afghanistan contrary to what Senator McCain thinks, can't be won right now.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Period.

If I gave him a reset button, I'd find someone in the state department who understands Russian," said Mr McCain. But he added: "I'd reiterate that we want to engage in dialogue with Russia . . . We are not going to see a reignition of the cold war. Russia doesn't have the military or economic clout to do that.


Moreover, as stated, McCain doesn't think Russia has any clout.

Senator McCain, this is the Gazprom era not the pro Taliban days in Afghanistan. Someone is looking to get a little pay back while watching the U.S. hunt the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It is very clear that Senator McCain does not get it; from Afghanistan, to Russia to his stance on global warming that got us in the mess with our energy dependency.

The Hydra with Three Heads

The hydra with three heads; Iran, China and Russia.

To win in Afghanistan, you have to cut off one head of the hydra,(which in this case would be Iran) before it has full nuclear capabilities. This will put to death the current regime in Iran.

Then, a message will be sent to Russia and China that we mean business and their proxies, the Taliban and the Al Qaeda will fall, if they continue to plan attacks or attack U.S. interests both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, the only country that may be willing to bomb Iran is Israel, but that option seems to be fading away as it seems Israel can't put its faith in the Obama administration.

And if the option to bomb Iran is still used by Israel while American and NATO troops are stationed in Afghanistan, they become a target (sitting ducks) to chemical attacks from Iran.

The Russians know all to well how chemical warfare worked against the Taliban and so do the Taliban. The Taliban can run and hide in caves, but American and NATO troops can't.

Again, this is no Iraq.

When it comes to understanding the importance of stopping Iran, former Secretary of State, Lawerence Eagleberger in this video, hit the nail on the head when it came to attacking Iran right now.

One nuclear war will be the last nuclear war.

Paving the Way: Who Will be Sanctioning Who

In August of 2006, a thread was posted here, titled The Russians Are Coming.

On that thread, an important piece of information was pointed to:

Gazprom has founded a company, Gazprom Marketing and Trading USA in Houston, Texas, to manage the regular delivery of liquid natural gas and the purchase of regasification terminals in the United States. Having begun to deliver gas to the U.S. in 2005, the Russian gas monopoly is planning to move to the direct delivery of liquid natural gas from the Shtokman field and to snap up 20% of the market, a share which could grow from 18 billion cubic meters in 2005 to 40-50 billion cubic meters in 2010.

Just recently an article was written about the very topic here:

Gazprom Marketing & Trading USA, the U.S. arm of the world's largest natural gas producer — which is majority owned by the Russian government — is ramping up operations in Houston in a big way.

The company has signed deals for more than 350 million cubic feet per day of physical supply at several locations around the U.S. and is set to import Russian liquefied natural gas into the country.

In other words, Russia is trying to make the U.S. dependent on natural gas, just like the European Union has become dependent on Russia's natural gas.

And we can see the effect, politically that energy dependency is having on the European Union and countries like the Ukraine.

Just today, Sarah Palin spoke to the U.S. and our energy needs.

Following her comments made on energy and the currency, one would have to ask, when it comes to sanctions and the U.S., who is really being sanctioned?

Because sanctions will be meaningless if horse trading is done on a world currency.

Moreover, what effect would sanctions really have if the currency changed and who would really have the economic power.

As was stated on this site when writing about The Speech of the Century: Benjamin Netanyahu's UN Speech.

From a geopolitical standpoint, China will seek to hold the upper-hand over Russia in that China is dependent on Russia's natural resources.

China will not want to be in a position that Europe is in, in that Russia uses its natural resources to manipulate Europe.

As for Obama asking for sanctions?

If China does go along with sanctions against Iran, expect Obama to give away more than what was given to Russia. And there is no doubt, it will cost America plenty.

Obama calls for a reduction in nuclear arms and "shelves" the missile defense system in Eastern Europe which leaves all of Eastern Europe vulnerable to Iran as well as Russia.

Putin won the first round against Obama, but it will be China who gets the big prize in all of this.

The question will be what will Obama give China? Will it be China's request on a new world currency?

BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.

Or will the Prime Minister of Israel use force against Iran to persuade China to put pressure on Iran.

The later may be the best option in the long run.

With the recent news that Obama may increase troops in Afghanistan; this should cause conservatives to pause and ask what will happen with Iran?

Hell, even members of Code Pink are having second thoughts on pulling out of Afghanistan.

Makes you wonder if troops in Afghanistan would keep the peace between Israel and Iran? And if so, for how long?

Conservatives, should be asking, will sanctions really stop Iran from building nuclear weapons? Or are the sanctions just a ruse to be used in one-sided horse trading by China for a world currency change.

After all, it's Obama's horse trading skills we are dealing with.

When it came to Russia at the G20 summit in Europe, Obama gave the horse, the saddle and the gun and left with nothing.

So, I would really question hard, the rationale for the build-up of troops in Afghanistan at this moment, given Israel may use the option to bomb Iran.

The reality for Israel is; they may have to face an Iran regime with nukes later on.

And right now as it stands, if Israel does bomb Iran, then all bets should be off on the safety of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

That is the reality for the U.S. On the flip-side, would troops in Afghanistan prevent Israel from attacking?

Other questions would be; what would be the chance of Iran hitting back at Israel, if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear infrastructure? Would Iran consider the odds of a retaliation by Israel if they did?

Or would Iran look at how we would retaliate under the Obama administration, if they attacked our troops in Afghanistan.

A betting man would bet Iran would look at an attack on Afghanistan.

I would say as previously stated on this site, pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan and put them in the Baltics, leave covert-ops in, complemented with sending in drones.

Then take Eagleberger's advice and bomb Iran's facilities.

Then, after bombing Iran we can send the troops back into Afghanistan with a force to be reckoned with.

And last, as adding to the emphasis of we will not be manipulated or threatened; while in the Baltics, our troops could tell Putin Ty moyo solnyshko.

No comments: