Display:

'He also reiterated the statement yesterday,' Snow continued, 'that he believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves, and also that we think it's important that in doing that they try to limit as much as possible so-called collateral damage, not only to facilities but also to human lives. So that is basically it.

Wait! Human lives come second in collateral damage? WTF?? Because facilities have to be rebuilt, probably with western aid money, while there are plenty of humans, and a couple fewer will just mean fewer moths to feed in the refugee camps? Don't they sit down and write these things out beforehand to catch shit like this and not actually say it, even if it is how they think?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 08:11:19 AM EST
Don't they sit down and write these things out beforehand to catch shit like this and not actually say it, even if it is how they think?  

Good catch.  

No they don't; nor do they think they really need to.  That's telling:  They are that sure of their control of the media, and of the sheeple's response, that they do not believe it matters if they telegraph their criminal intent.  

And those who would be offended?  They are already marked as the Enemy, and probably know it anyway.  

Which leads to another point:  Though it seems a new war is breaking out in the Middle East--it is really the old war, escalating to a new level, and all the principals understand this.  

It is a US war--the weirdly detached US policy statements make this evident--whether or not Israel took the initiative for a break-out of fighting at this time.  

For both the US and Israel, time is running out:  If total domination is to be achieved, it must be achieved soon.  For Israel, the reasons have been mentioned in this thread, and for the US, it confirms what the number-crunching economists have been saying for the past year:  The US economy is indeed entering the zone of collapse this a year.  The US must win its war for oil before that happens.  

Scenerio A:  The US fights its war for oil and wins.  This means taking out ALL opponents, so that practically all oil falls into US hands.  This enables the US economy to restart through a renewed influx of cheap oil, and by selling to those willing to pay.  Seems impossible when we realize that all means all.  

Scenerio B:  The US fights and loses.  This frankly seems more likely, but it won't happen all at once.  The economic implosion ensues, and the US largely shifts to its own dwindling oil reserves to keep the military going.  Non-military parts of the economy come to a stop, followed by growing domestic chaos.  The war becomes domestic as well as international (a concern only for those living in North America).  Eventually, military collapse follows spiralling logistical crises.  Oh--and does the war go nuclear?  There will be a real art to avoiding that.  In the first place it is important to present no tempting target.  In the second, collapse must be managed very carefully, I suspect seemingly inclusive engagements are best, so there is no suddent impetus to move to a nuclear phase.  

I think the point up-thread is significant: Both Israel and the US are possessed of Master Race ideologies that will certainly affect how the war is conducted--indeed we have been seeing the effects for a few years now.  


The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Jul 18th, 2006 at 05:31:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series