For those of you out there who believe Mitt Romney will start WWIII if elected.....

[AverageJoe90]

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm just curious as to why you may think so.

However, I don't think it will, and here's a few reasons why:

1.)Russia is not Stalin's USSR-Even Vlad Putin will not be willing to risk 160 million lives over an invasion of Iran, or Syria(it didn't even come close to happening in '08, and that was when Shrub, Jr. was in office). Why would he nuke the U.S., period? And if he even thought about such a thing, the Russian people would be up in arms within hours.
2.)China needs us more than we need them-They absolutely depend on our trading for their economy to survive. If we embargoed them tomorrow, their economy would be in recession within days.
3.)Romney is an idiot but he's no Hitler-Even Reagan wasn't foolhardy enough to declare war on the Russians without cause. And Romney has shitloads of cash invested in Chinese companies, as well. He is all talk, no action. (I'd be scared if a guy like David Duke took over, though)
4.)And most importantly, the Cold War ended in 1991.

Truth is, as bad as a Romney Presidency would be, I have to say that this kind of extreme speculation is making us Dems look like tin-foil hatters. Sad but true.

(I thought I might clarify that what I meant by WWIII, was in the traditional sense, that is global atomic warfare.)

[DonViejo]

1. Please provide a link to a DU discussion about Myth

beginning WWIII.

Oh, BTW, most conservatives and wing nuts believe WWIII has all ready begun.

[AverageJoe90]

2. Not so much here, but on the Internet in general.

I think most DUers are more level-headed than that, though I've seen a few comments supporting that theory from time to time.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Actually, not at all here.

And if you see it elsewhere, shouldn't you be posting there?

[DonViejo]

5. Your OP is the only one I've ever read on DU alleging

Mitt Romney will begin WWIII. But, like I said in my post above, according to the beliefs of the flying monkeys, WWIII is all most universally believed to have commenced on 9/11 2001. It's also a part of the wing nut belief that President Obama is a Muslim.

[AverageJoe90]

16. I didn't say Romney would begin WWIII, quite the opposite, actually!

But I've noticed a fair number of comments in recent months making that same assumption. Perhaps I'm being a little too skittish for my own good but I can't help but worry that stuff like this could be used against us.

[SCVDem]

66. Never forget that Romney is a puppet

You may believe he won't start WWIII, but the people he has surrounding him from the Bush years think differently.

Safeguard America.

Bring back the draft with NO DEFERMENTS!

Privates Romney! A Ten Hut!

[AverageJoe90]

78. I say what I say because I know what I'm talking about.

It just isn't all that likely. But if a Second Cold War does get started, things may change for the worse, 20-30 years down the road. Let's elect Obama this year so it doesn't happen.

[OldDem2012]

92. If you knew what you were talking about, how come not that many people are agreeing with you?....

...Do yourself a favor...read up on the NeoCons. Start with this site:

The Project for the New American Century

Click the "Defense and National Security" tab and read the information in both articles. Then tell me that's not almost word for word what Romney is talking about in terms of foreign policy and defense. Check out the participants in both articles. Recognize any names?

Then go to "About PNAC". Recognize any names?

Dick Cheney was also originally listed as a participant, but his name has disappeared. Wonder why?

Here's a hint...quite a few of these names are Romney advisers.

[AverageJoe90]

108. I know full well about PNAC. And they scare me.

Believe me, I've actually read that document a few times, and frankly, I do think they are obsessed with the Cold War, which is why I think they would love to start a new one. But right now, WWIII just isn't that likely, and hopefully Obama wins so that hopefull, PNAC's Cold War, ver. 2, never comes to fruition.

"If you knew what you were talking about, how come not that many people are agreeing with you?"

Some people just have different views, I guess.

[KansDem]

128. I've always been intrigued by how PNAC...

...identifies Iraq singularly; separating it from the regions that mark the rest of their world map.

And the letter to Bill Clinton during the late 1990s recommending he do something about Iraq.

The PNACers were "Iraq crazy" even before W stole the White House. They were itching to go in.

It gives more credence to LIHOP...

[coalition_unwilling]

160. Ha-ha. "Private Romney"! I like the cut of your jib. Put the private on

either KP or latrine duty!

[Nye Bevan]

70. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=260183

[Posteritatis]

86. Meh, there's plenty of people here who think "WWIII" every time a diplomat sneezes.

It's more or less as much a part of DU's atmosphere as nitrogen is these days.

[AverageJoe90]

149. Sadly, it seems you may be right.

I'm particularly worried right now because of the extreme amount of spin the right-wingers in our media and elsewhere have engaged in.

I dunno, maybe I'm reading way too much into this. I'll feel better when our President wins his second term in office.

[ELI BOY 1950]

4. hope your right but

Thats what they do...history supports that fact. They start wars but leave the fighting to our kids.
Romney's father, Romney, and his five sons have NEVER fought in any war. They have hidden
behind that cult "religion" Mormonism...sad.

They will start a war in a heartbeat...thats where the money is...ask dick cheney

[lunatica]

10. Welcome to DU!

Anyone who knows the Dick Cheney involvement in all this has got to be a smart person.

[AverageJoe90]

15. A war, no doubt. But I doubt WWIII is even more than remotely possible today.

But then again, an Iran War would be bad enough. Also, welcome to DU.

[begin_within]

6. Not WWIII, just a 3 trillion dollar war with Iran that will cost 4000 American lives

and make obscene profits for defense contractors, of course.

[Raster]

28. which could turn into WW3.

[Strelnikov_]

64. "Home before the leaves fall"

You will be home before the leaves fall from the trees.

Kaiser Wilhelm II addressing German soldiers departing for the front in WWI (August 1914).


Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill

[AverageJoe90]

71. Very true in the case of Iran.

Iraq was bad. Iran will be far worse......but WWIII? Not quite. Again, we should look at the Georgia crisis in 2008; It's a U.S. ally and right on the border with Russia, and both the U.S. and Russia were headed by criminally incompetent hawks. And yet, the world didn't end then.

As for the possibility of the startup of a Second Cold War, it does exist, and if it does, then could change the dynamic. But right now, WWIII is not much more than a fleeting possibility. This isn't a Tom Clancy novel, folks.

[Strelnikov_]

77. Start a fire in the region holding 80% of worlds remaining oil reserves

anything is possible.

[AverageJoe90]

80. Under the right circumstances, yes.

But not everything lines up at the moment for a WW3 scenario.

[JackRiddler]

101. Which probably will turn into World War III.

At least, by the conventional numbering.

(By my reckoning, WW3 was the nuclear* and hot war between the superpowers and by the imperialist powers on and in the third world, roughly 1945-1989. WW4 started soon after with the search for a new enemy and really got going after 9/11, it is the perpetualization and omnipresence of war as an entity that is nowhere and everywhere and was, right after 9/11, aptly named by CNN as "America's New War," actual enemy variable and vague but hostilities always happening somewhere.)

* yeah, nuclear - more than 2000 nuclear strikes staged by the combatants on their own territories as a means of engendering terror on the other side.

[AverageJoe90]

119. Possibly in the conventional sense but even that's unlikely.

Still though, I'd feel far safer with Barack Obama in office than Mittens Robme. I do hope the President wins a second term.

[JackRiddler]

132. The risks associated with an attack on Iran...

are absolutely unacceptable. I don't care to figure out the odds in advance of escalations and unforeseen consequences in a situation fertile for chaos. It's insane. At the least, the Straits will close. Even without these risks, it's a vast criminal enterprise - unprovoked mass murder.

[AverageJoe90]

147. That I can definitely agree with.

And if told to, Romney probably will invade Iran. And if it does, I do wonder if perhaps this could lead to an invasion of Israel; if the Israelis get scared enough, they might just go Samson on everybody.

[AverageJoe90]

44. That is a definite possibility.

Which is why we MUST avoid war with Iran at any cost(unless they attacked us first. Which they may not).

[Confusious]

52. Only 4000?

I'm thinking it would be 4x or 5x times higher then that.

Iraq cost 4000, and it's a smaller country, Iran has a lot of missiles that could take out our ships.

They hit one carrier, and that's 4000 right there.

I also doubt there would be a lot of dissent in fighting America. Iranians would pull together to evict us.

[AverageJoe90]

56. That does make sense when you think about it.

Many, many Iranians hate the mullahs just as many Russians hate that incompetent buffoon Dubya Putin. But if we invaded first, they'd be more scared of us because we'd be the ones bombing their cities and stuff, and it would take much longer for legitimate democracy to develop over there. We have meddled enough as it is!

[Puzzledtraveller]

84. and what will stop us from doing that anyway?

The war drums haven't died down but since we have a D in office who gives a shit right?

[CabCurious]

134. Syria/Iran and sectarian chaos, combined with the collapse of OPEC

What we're seeing now in Syria could quiet predictably spill into increasing sectarian violence with Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq.

The Iranian conflict itself could completely parallel this situation, if Israel finds some need to be aggressive.

If Romney were President in January, we could certainly expect a breakdown in diplomacy and a neocon-cowboy approach (even though the neocon intellectuals themselves called the ideology a failure).

Romney has absolutely no military experience and no real sense of humility.

[coalition_unwilling]

161. You think a land war with Iran will cost only 4000 American lives? Iran has 1,000,000 soldiers

it its army and over 80,000 in its Revolutionary Guards. A ground invasion of Iran would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan look like a Montessori pre-school. Iranians are as patriotic about their country (or more so) as Americans are about our country. And Iran is ethnically homogenous (Persian). They will fight, most often smartly and bravely, and many of our soldiers will die for each foot of soil we take. Think Stalingrad.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Then his proposed doubling of the Pentagon budget is puzzling.

What president insists the Pentagon take far more money than they ask for? Romney promises to build far more ships than the Navy currently knows what to do with.

A Naval deployment is strategically important to any Middle East incursion, and we know many of his billionaire supporters view crude oil as the spoils of war. Of course, the ramping up of military wares is also a bonus to the largely Republican states that build such systems, but what happens when a Romney led US has more deadly toys than we can possibly use? He'll find a way to deploy them.

Even if it's about smaller mineral rich countries in Africa or South America (looking at you Chavez), Romney can use America's newly purchased might to impose and expand our rule in an empire that will last a thousand years and bring home the world's riches to the doorstop of his palace. ...Or not.

[lunatica]

8. How exactly is Putin risking 160 million lives?

And which 160 million people are you talking about.

And, no. China doesn't need us more than we need them. They own us.

I agree that Romney is an idiot, but he has advisers who include the Dick Cheney who loves wars because they mean we can be the Number One Top Dog Superpower as laid out in PNAC (google it if you like).

Based on the above I can tell you're not savvy enough to know what is tin hat and what is educated speculation.

[AverageJoe90]

14. WWIII is not educated speculation by any means. That's why I'm a little concerned lately.

The Republicans will do anything to win, including making us Democrats look like nutjobs.

And what I said, was, "Why would he risk 160 million lives?", as in, why would he launch nukes against the U.S., over an invasion of Iran or Syria, as some on the 'net have speculated?

[lunatica]

21. Even though we have been at war perpetually for at least a century

you think another World War is impossible? What do you think the world is doing to Afghanistan and previously to Iraq? All our Allies have been involved at one time or another. NATO is involved.

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a political-military alliance made up of 28 member countries, including the United States. Formed in 1949, NATO has played a unique and essential role in maintaining security and stability throughout the past six decades. It has grown and adapted to changing political environments and security challenges and, with enlargements, partnerships, and peacekeeping missions, has proven itself to be a continuingly effective Alliance.

The core principle on which NATO was founded is the Article V commitment, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. The first and only time this was put into action was after the September 11 terrorist attacks when NATO stood with the United States and helped secure American airspace. In 2003, NATO continued its commitment to combat terrorism by taking over command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan. Every one of NATO’s 28 members contributes to that mission, as do 22 non-NATO contributors."

http://www.chicagonato.org/what-is-nato--pages-188.php

[AverageJoe90]

23. Mostly impossible, yes.

And the facts that I've listed are just a few reasons why. As concerned as I am about a future Iran War, let's be realistic at the same time.

[lunatica]

29. Realistic?

I think maybe you don't have a clue about history.

[AverageJoe90]

35. Quite the opposite.

This isn't like WWI, which started when the Archduke of Austria was murdered, or WWII when that fascist monster Hitler decided to go on his conquering/killing spree across the European continent. The advent of the atom bomb changed many things.

Because you know what? The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction was well understood by both powers and even Curtis LeMay couldn't cross the line during Cuba, and he was as nutty as you could get! And even today, many remember the Cold War and the scares that happened. The warhawks want us to forget all that. They want the public to come to their line of thinking and that does include throwing out shitloads of "WWIII will happen anytime now" propaganda, just like they did in the '50s.

I may only be 22 but I am an ardent student of Cold War history. Too many things have happened to make global nuclear war anything but an extremely remote possibility; look at Georgia in '08 for example: It is a U.S. ally and right next to Russia(and was in fact, a Soviet Socialist Republic!). And Bush was just about as fucked up as Romney. Believe me when I say that I was actually pretty concerned back then.....I was only 18 and not exactly very politically savvy. I know better now, though.

If you want one concession, though, I am concerned about the possibility of nuclear terrorism, particularly if we invade Iran(especially under Romney). And that is bad enough, IMO.

[lunatica]

37. Of course they won't use nukes. They don't have to in order

to have NATO involved. Read the link I put up about NATO. I won't waste my time doing it again since you obviously don't follow links.

[AverageJoe90]

42. I did. So what? Doesn't give credence to the WW3 theory. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

39. You might want to read up more on Russia, then.

The Russians still think the Cold War is on, and many are seriously pissed that NATO's at their doorstep. Putin would have very little trouble taking them to war for an old ally like Iran.

[AverageJoe90]

41. Or so the media tells us.

I am seriously not buying the MSM's narrative, though. Putin's an asshole, but I seriously don't believe he's that willing to war over Iran.

[lunatica]

45. Why not? He may think, like Americans do, that

he could get the Russian people all worked up to go to war. Or do you think Americans are unique in that way? Any asshole leader, with the help of the media can get any population worked up into a lather over war. Jesus! Do you know anything about history?!

[AverageJoe90]

49. No, I don't think we're at all unique.

Believe me, if anyone was a master of warhawking in the modern era, it was Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. Stalin whipped up the Russians pretty good, too.

And then we have good sections of the Israeli public, today, who are pretty hawkish, too. So, no, I don't think we're alone. Far from it. In fact, I would say that the three countries with the biggest warhawk problems, outside America, would be Israel, North Korea and Iran at the moment(at least the majority of Iranians and Israelis don't want war.....can't say for sure about NK, though).

[knitter4democracy]

139. Pretty good?!

Oh my. You need to read up on Russian history. People still carry around signs of Stalin at rallies in Russia. For crying out loud.

[AverageJoe90]

143. Some probably do.

I mean, it's only been 20 years, and Stalin probably is one of the most well-remembered Russian leaders of any era.

But I seriously doubt these people are anywhere close to the majority.

[knitter4democracy]

155. Check the latest polls on Putin and get back to me.

1. Stop applying American mores and logic to Russians. It doesn't work and never has.
2. Stop thinking that the poly sci you've learned in an American university applies at all to the Russian situation.
3. Admit when you don't know or that you might need more information to make an informed decision.

Russians are a unique people with a very interesting history. Stalin wasn't just Stalin to them--he was far more than that. Ignore that, belittle that, compare him to anyone else from our history or Western history, and you will miss the entire picture.

[AverageJoe90]

145. Oh, stop already.

I never once insinuated that Americans are unique like that, and in fact, I gave examples of other countries whose populations also suffered similar issues(remember the Nazis?). You've already lost the argument here.

[knitter4democracy]

138. Hon, I lived there. This isn't US MSM narrative.

When I said read up on it, I meant real news. Moscow Times is in English and isn't too bad. Read real news (El Pais, El Mundo, BBC, Moscow Times, etc.) and then get back to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. No, but I think he'll put a couple more jackasses on the SCOTUS

that's bad enough, especially for anyone who thinks women who use the birth control pill shouldn't be arrested for it.

[DonCoquixote]

11. with all due respect

A lot of people never thought we would be crazy to be at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with a side war in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan.

And a side note which is not mentioned, Fidel Castro will not live forever, and Chavez has Cancer...anyoen who thinks that we will not be ready to devour their bones is not paying attention.

[AverageJoe90]

51. Very true.

And I do worry about what could happen if we invade Venezuela in particular. Chavez is far from perfect, but he's no Stalin and unlike the Islamist Ayatollahs in Iran and Bibi in Tel Aviv, Hugo is genuinely popular with the majority of his country's people. Iran would be bad in terms of civilian resistance........Venezuela would be a goddamn nightmare!

I hope it never happens, but sadly, you are right, it is very possible.

[DonCoquixote]

54. Not just possible

Invading Cuba would earn the GOP the Cuban allegiance for life.

And Venezuela has oil.

[AverageJoe90]

76. You've hit the nail on the head here. n/t

[Old Union Guy]

12. First time I heard that one.

Who would we be fighting anyhow?

[AverageJoe90]

19. My sentiment exactly!

But it's still out there, and I've seen some comments on this site in recent months espousing this theory as if it were a sure thing, or something similar.

[treestar]

13. Republicans remember the bounce Poppy got with his Gulf War

They know they can get Americans rabidly behind them. They used 911 similarly. And the MIC makes more money. So it's certainly not unthinkable that Rmoney would find an excuse for a war. It doesn't have to be Russia. Or even Iran. Just something that happens that Rmoney can use to get the people riled up and ready to fight. The US seems to get suddenly very patriotic and unified by the idea of war.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Too many people remember the scares of the Cold War, though. n/t

[lunatica]

30. You're losing your argument

but by all means soldier on!

[AverageJoe90]

47. Whatever you'd like to believe.

There have been some decent points made, but none of them discount my argument by any means.

If you don't mind:

http://www.outonlimbs.com/2010/10/there-will-never-be-world-war-3.html

And here's a quote which I think is very important to keep in mind: "It keeps the myth up and every time you say something has the potential to start World War III, the power behind it is enormous." Because that's exactly what the warhawks want. They love this stuff.

[jsmirman]

18. Could not intend to and do it just the same. No experience + Bush foreign policy team

+ prone to "just saying stuff," which includes stuff that falls under cowboy rhetoric

+ caused international incidents in just a week abroad

+ wants a two trillion dollar increase in military spending

+ he and his running mate are the two guys who are "for the thing that is 'more,' when the alternative is everything below a declaration of war - and don't realize that this means you want war."

You have a pair who is extremely callow in the area of foreign policy, a potential President who has no discernible guiding principles whatsoever and no core convictions - and into those breaches you have the comforting guiding light of the Bush foreign policy team.

I've used the term WWIII, so here I am, ready and accountable.

And if you don't think the above are damn good reasons to be scared as fuck over a "President Romney," whose only discernible foreign policy skill is "bellicose talk," I think you are a fool and an optimist.

[AverageJoe90]

22. I'm very concerned about Romney's possible fuck-ups would he ever win the Presidency. Believe me.

But WWIII isn't really all that likely. Even in 1983 we didn't get bombed and Reagan came damn close to getting us blown up, and neither did it happen in August '08 during the Georgia crisis.....things have calmed down quite a bit since 1991.

We have every reason to be very concerned in the event he decided to invade Iran. But would Russia be willing to nuke us over a country(Iran) that doesn't really respect them anyway? This talk just smacks of neo-con fearmongering and sadly, some Democrats seem to have bought into it.

This is pretty important especially because this is an election year and the rightists will do anything to make us look like tin-foil hatters.

[jsmirman]

27. I think perhaps it can be expressed as - he could cause major damage and chaos overseas

if you think WWIII is too heated rhetorically, fine.

I consider the above, however, to be very dangerous.

I also subscribe to the idea that once you lose control of a conflagration, there is no telling what could happen.

So that's my take. People spouting it thoughtlessly could cause a problem, maybe?

I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

[AverageJoe90]

62. I mostly agree with this one.

It very well could spin out of control in some ways; if Israel gets bombed and/or invaded, then they could possibly go Samson on their Middle Eastern enemies. Scary possibility but it does exist.

It's just that this isn't the 1980s anymore. Now, if a Second Cold War does start up, and it very well could, then things could very well change in that regard, but I'm not convinced that it's more than a very remote possibility at this point.

[uponit7771]

20. umm, he's a fuckin liar and will sell his mother for money?!?! REALLY? He has no redeeming character

...traits..

He trips grown women for gods sake...

Really...why are we having this thread?

regards

[AverageJoe90]

25. Yeah, but does that automatically make WWIII a sure thing or even likely?

Bush didn't have many redeeming traits, either. But Russia didn't bomb us when we (wrongly) invaded Iraq in '03. Not even when the Georgia crisis happened just 5 years later.

This is a problem because we have a right-wing spin machine going full force at the moment and they'll do anything to discredit us Democrats.

[uponit7771]

133. Yes, if he can profit somehow from it he'll do it...he's already said he'd take advantage of any ...

..foreign policy issues that come up during the campaign.

If a person tells you they're an asshole believe them

[AverageJoe90]

150. He may have said that, but will it even indirectly lead to WWIII? IDTS.

What does concern me, though, is the very real possibility of widespread anarchy in much of the Middle East, and that of nuclear terrorism, if things get bad enough.

[OldDem2012]

24. Let's examine your points, one-by-one....

1.)Russia is not Stalin's USSR-Even Vlad Putin will not be willing to risk 160 million lives over an invasion of Iran, or Syria(it didn't even come close to happening in '08, and that was when Shrub, Jr. was in office). Why would he nuke the U.S., period? And if he even thought about such a thing, the Russian people would be up in arms within hours.

Putin was a member of the KGB from 1975-1991...no doubt he still feels the pain of the collapse of a political system he originally supported. Since assuming the reins of power in Russia he has slowly but steadily consolidated that power to the point where he has very few serious political opponents. The Russian people may "be up in arms" if Putin made military moves against the West, but they would do as an unarmed mob. Different rules in that country regarding ownership of personal weapons.

2.)China needs us more than we need them-They absolutely depend on our trading for their economy to survive. If we embargoed them tomorrow, their economy would be in recession within days.

Seriously?? If they decide to pull in all of the loans they've made to the US, we would be the ones in major trouble, not them.

3.)Romney is an idiot but he's no Hitler-Even Reagan wasn't foolhardy enough to declare war on the Russians without cause. And Romney has shitloads of cash invested in Chinese companies, as well. He is all talk, no action. (I'd be scared if a guy like David Duke took over, though)

You seem to have forgotten that the same people advising Romney are the same former Cold War warriors who advised Ronnie, Poppy and Junior. The NeoCons believe that Manifest Destiny is a global concept...world domination is their real aim in life. Yes, Romney's not very bright, but he'll do exactly what he's told by this group because he'll be told it's good for business.

4.)And most importantly, the Cold War ended in 1991.

Not according to the group I described above. Their enemies may have changed somewhat, but the goals of the NeoCons remain the same. These peole will be taking prominent roles in Romney's administration and pushing the same goals they pushed while working for Ronnie, Poppy, and Junior.

Bottom line? We should be VERY concerned about the possibility of Romney becoming President.

[AverageJoe90]

31. Let's be realistic.

Putin was a member of the KGB from 1975-1991...no doubt he still feels the pain of the collapse of a political system he originally supported. Since assuming the reins of power in Russia he has slowly but steadily consolidated that power to the point where he has very few serious political opponents. The Russian people may "be up in arms" if Putin made military moves against the West, but they would do as an unarmed mob. Different rules in that country regarding ownership of personal weapons.

Maybe so, but would he really want to gamble with 160 million Russian lives just because Romney invaded Iran or Syria? Putin's crooked, but he's no Stalin. Even Stalin and Brezhnev would have balked at that, because invading Iran in a future year, would not be anything like NATO invading East Germany or Czechoslovakia in an parallel universe 1980s. In the latter scenario, WWIII would pretty much be a sure thing. In the former? Not nearly as much.

Seriously?? If they decide to pull in all of the loans they've made to the US, we would be the ones in major trouble, not them.

We'd be in deep shit, I don't doubt that, but if we pulled out of trading with China, they'd be in the hole too. They are far from invincible, you know. (and even a few cities being lost would be the end for them. Can you say, "Warlord Era II", anyone?)

You seem to have forgotten that the same people advising Romney are the same former Cold War warriors who advised Ronnie, Poppy and Junior. The NeoCons believe that Manifest Destiny is a global concept...world domination is their real aim in life. Yes, Romney's not very bright, but he'll do exactly what he's told by this group because he'll be told it's good for business.

To the contrary, I know darn well that a lot of the Cold Warriors are still around. But why didn't Georgia cause it in 2008? Bush was little better than Romney would be. And I doubt losing bases and some major cities, especially ones like New York, Chicago, etc. would be any good for business.

Not according to the group I described above. Their enemies may have changed somewhat, but the goals of the NeoCons remain the same. These peole will be taking prominent roles in Romney's administration and pushing the same goals they pushed while working for Ronnie, Poppy, and Junior.

Bottom line? We should be VERY concerned about the possibility of Romney becoming President.

Believe me, I am quite concerned. But if we let this kind of nutty thinking spread, that WWIII is imminent, or whatever, then it is a sure thing that the only people who will truly benefit in the end will be those same people we all dread: Kissinger, PNAC and company.

What I've said makes sense when you really think about it.

I am legitimate concerned because this is an election year and the Repubs are scraping the total bottom of the barrel when it comes to trying to find ways to discredit us Democrats. And that includes the possibility of double think agitprop, such as right-wingers in the press pushing imminent WWIII propaganda(while secretly hoping for it at the same time). I wouldn't be surprised; better to get this out early than to be caught off guard if they do try something like that.

[knitter4democracy]

40. Read up on Putin. Just sayin'.

I studied in Russia in college for a semester when Yeltsin was president, and I've stayed up on Russian politics since. Keep in mind that Iran's an old ally and that there are many Russians itching for a fight with the West.

[AverageJoe90]

43. I have read up on Putin.

Believe me, he really is Russia's Dubya. But given the protests in Russia recently, I seriously doubt that that many Russians are that hawkish. Some may be. But not that many, and not on the level of nuking the United States.

[OldDem2012]

63. There have also been lots of protests in the US - so what?....

...Is either the Russian or US political regime seriously threatened by protesters? Get serious.

You need to do quite a bit more reading on Putin. If he could, Putin would restore the old Soviet system in a heartbeat, but it would be fascist in nature, not communist.

One more point...how many Americans are "hawkish"? Has that affected the number of wars in which we've been involved since the end of WWII? Why would it be any different in Russia?

[AverageJoe90]

67. There were many right-wing hawks in the Cold War era.....

And there's still a fair number of them now.

"Get serious"? Really?

Has that affected the number of wars in which we've been involved since the end of WWII? Why would it be any different in Russia?

Maybe not by much, but Russia isn't quite like America. Otherwise, they would have been involved in as many wars as we were (and still are).

[OldDem2012]

89. What's that old saying about not waking up "sleeping giants"?....

Since the formation of Russia in 1991, they've been involved in the following wars:

First Chechen War 1994-1996 (Russia won - 6000 military deaths; 35,000 civilian casualties inside Chechnya)

Dagestan War 1999 (Russia won - 300 military casualties)

Second Chechen War 1999-2009 (Russia won - 7500 military deaths)

Looks like comparable losses to me.

[knitter4democracy]

141. They were and are.

They were in Afghanistan for ten years. They've been involved in a lot of the more recent stuff, just quietly and selling weapons. They need the cash for their economy, and Russians make great weapons. If you think they still don't have spies over here and everywhere, still aren't quietly involved in everything we're involved in, you haven't been paying attention. The Cold War isn't really over and never really ended--the Russians don't think it ended, and we certainly don't act like it did, either.

[knitter4democracy]

140. He's not Dubya. He's far more dangerous.

He's an amazingly crafty, intelligent guy. He put another in as president and is still the one in charge. Don't fall for the US MSM crap on Putin--read the real news. Those protests are awesome, sure, but given Russian history, they don't mean much. They'll just be ignored. Again.

[AverageJoe90]

142. The Russian media can't be trusted 100%, either.

Remember Izvestia & Pravda? Both of them were official Soviet propaganda organs. It is indeed true that they would sometimes be truthful, but other times, not so much. Russia Today has a similar problem as well; slightly better than U.S. media in some ways, but not by much.

Sad thing is, though, you are absolutely correct on one thing: those protests didn't really add up to much.

[knitter4democracy]

154. Hon, I studied and lived there in '95. Yeah, I remember.

Moscow Times is more independent, hence the recommendation. Btw, Pravda is a far better news source than many of ours, controlled by the state though it may be. Just sayin'.

When I was 22 and thought I knew shit, I at least knew to actually listen to people who'd been through it.

[OldDem2012]

59. If what you said made sense I wouldn't have responded. nt.

[mick063]

26. I have a one word answer for you

Islam.


You think the US is the only country with demographic changes?

Do your homework on the demographic changes taking place in Europe.

Look at the number of people in the world that practice the Islamic faith.
Look at the amount of Islamic antagonism occuring at the unofficial/free speech level. (ie. YouTube, books, Koran burning, etc.)
Look at the economic state of the world and especially that of Europe.
Look at the anti Islamic rhetoric coming from the GOP.
Look at how the GOP base percieves the United Nations.
Look at the military budget proposed by Mitt Romney.
Look at how the nuclear weapon capable nation of Pakistan is brimming with Taliban sympathy.
Look at history (ie. Iran) to see how quickly a US "cornerstone" can become an enemy overnight.
Look at the growing world demand for natural resources in relationship to world population growth.
Look at the vast amount of arms sold throughout the world.
Look at the last UN speech given by Benjamin Netanyahu


The GOP could easily put us in to World War III and if elected, I believe they will.

Take the tinfoil hat bullshit and shove it mister. This isn't an internet word game. This is the real deal.

[AverageJoe90]

32. I've taken many things into account.

I've done plenty of homework, mister. And believe me when I say that an invasion of Iran would be immensely disastrous, especially in the event of a Romney presidency. There is even the possibility of nuclear terrorism occurring as well.
But when we start buying into this extreme fearmongering, it sets traps of all sorts for us, and we desperately need to avoid those, especially in a post-Dubya world. And in fact, need I point out that it's the hardcore right wingers that have been throwing this shit out over the past 20 years anyhow?

If we let this shit gets repeated, it may very well affect Obama's chances for re-election, because if the far-right can get enough traction on something like this, they'll run with it. And they will do anything to keep it alive, including the use of double-think. We HAVE to be extra-vigilant this year.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

33. If he just got us involved in smaller regional wars it would be bad

And I seem to recall a certain simian-looking candidate tell us in a 2000 debate that he wouldn't get us involved in nation-building and yet we got involved in two hot and expensive wars in the middle east. Syria anyone? Venezuela or Columbia anyone? The Republicans never seem to miss an occasion or creative justification for war.

[AverageJoe90]

36. That is very true.

And believe me, I am very afraid than an Iran War will be a sure thing if Rmoney gets his grubby hands on the White House.

I'm just afraid that the rightists will take advantage of all this WW3 fearmongering that's been showing up and that they'll try to use this to justify trying to get people to stop listening to the many very real & valid reasons to oppose an Iran War. Maybe I'm a little too pessimistic for my own good, but better safe than sorry, IMO.

[still_one]

34. What I know is what rommney has the same PNAC people that bush had as his advisors, and I do NOT

have the trust that those militant SOBs would not start a WWIII as you do

With that logic I guess women don't have to worry about roe v wade being overturned, social security and medicare privatized, or supreme court justices that fall into the line of scalia and thomas if the "romney team is elected"

Maybe you didn't hear what ryan said during the debate

[AverageJoe90]

38. I don't trust them not to, I just don't think it's that possible.

And believe me when I say that it's a practically a sure thing that Roe V. Wade will be overturned and SS & Medicare privatized under Rmoney/Ryan.

And yes, I heard what Ryan said. I watched the whole debate. He's a hawk, pure and simple.

[annabanana]

46. What makes you think THOSE are the most likely scenarios?

An oil based conflagration centered in the MidEast involving the breakup of the current nation states along tribal configurations is much more likely imho.

[AverageJoe90]

48. Sounds plausible.

The scenario that you've come up with is far more likely, IMHO. It wouldn't be the end of the world......but it would certainly be very, very bad for the Middle East, and it would cause great economic trouble for many other countries, including(and perhaps especially) the U.S.. And then there's the possibility of atomic terrorism. Scary stuff, really.

[99Forever]

50. Can't say as I have ever...

.. seen any posts here that say what you contend. Maybe there were and I just missed them.

I have seen and completely agree with posts that say that the out of touch jerk is a warmongering asshole that given a set of circumstances beyond his ability to cope with in the statesmanlike way, (which wouldn't take much with a dickhead like him) he most certainly could easily set in motion events that could lead to World War. Because yes, he really is that big of an arrogant asshole and isn't especially smart.

Frankly, neither you, I, or anyone else has any idea of what events may or may not unfold, but I SURE AS FUCK KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that clueless waste of oxygen holding the keys to the Access Codes, is very very fucking dangerous thing, and if you want to call me a "tinfoil hatter" because I said so, I really don't give a shit.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Yes, Romney is an arrogant asshole, and a stupid one at that.

Even so, would it necessarily lead to that? Bush was about the same way, and we didn't get blown to cinders when Georgia was invaded back in '08.

Frankly, neither you, I, or anyone else has any idea of what events may or may not unfold

True, but we can also look back at history and current events. All the observation I've done suggests that WWIII is highly, highly, unlikely, at least in the short term, even if Romney, god forbid, ends up as George Bush's third term. But then again, I do believe an Iran War would be a disaster as is, because it would.

and if you want to call me a "tinfoil hatter" because I said so, I really don't give a shit.

You may not give a shit, but I do, because it's something that the warhawks can use against us; they are masters of double-think.

[99Forever]

61. So you think that there's some "reasonable way"..

... to deal with "warhawks" aka: war pigs? That's your first mistake, thinking keeping silent about the danger that asshole poses as if it is going get the rightie warmongerers to not talk bad about us.

Fuck 'em all, I don't give a rat's patoot what that murdering scum says about me. But if you prefer to knuckle under and play it their way, fine, go right ahead, it's a free country.

[AverageJoe90]

65. I'm not thinking about keeping silent about Romney.

And I'm not planning on knuckling under either. But after all I've seen, I'm convinced that this talk about an imminent WWIII is only helping these same warhawks(especially in an election year), and not those who want the military-industrial complex to be reined in and checked, like 99% of the people on this site, you and me included.

[99Forever]

83. You keep saying that..

.. some sort of magical "help" (of what sort or definition, you have yet to explain) will appear because of what? Because people are speculating about something?

Really?




Well, allrightie then!




Whatever you say.

[kurt_cagle]

72. Different scenario

Georgia has always been considered within the Russian orbit - after the Soviet Union collapsed, there has long been a tacit assumption that the "breakaway countries" that had been within the Soviet Union itself were effectively on their own. Challenging the Russians on Georgia would have been problematic, and at that stage Bush had no political clout to spend.

Romney would have no such constraint. Syria has been a difficult foreign policy problem for a while, since a significant of Russians have moved to Syria and intermarried. Beyond strategic importance, Syria is as much Russia's colony in the region as Israel is the US's. Obama does not want to get pulled into that conflict - it serves no real purpose, and it has the potential to significantly backfire. Romney, on the other hand, seems to be moving into the NeoCon camp there, and wants to "clean it up" once and for all. This cannot end well.

[AverageJoe90]

74. I don't think it'll end well, either.

And there is a very real possibility of terrorism like we have never seen before. If we thought 9/11 was bad, there could be something far, far, worse; nukes in Chicago or Miami, anyone?

[malaise]

55. Fugg WilLIARd Rmoney n/t

[AverageJoe90]

60. Yes. Fucking FUCK Mittens Rmoney!

We NEED for Obama to win this year.

[spanone]

57. it's my future and i'll speculate about it all i want. extreme? don't think so.

[AverageJoe90]

58. The problem is, this stuff can actually hurt us.

And believe me, nobody wants another Mideast War.

If this stuff didn't have so much potential of being used against us I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[kurt_cagle]

68. Do I Believe Romney will Start WWIII?

No. Do I have a feeling that Romney may very well stumble into a situation where a heated local conflict becomes WWIII. Yeah. I'd say it's likely in fact.

Syria is a flash point. Iran is a flash point. The King and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia are both in their 80s, and succession is far from guaranteed past that. Pakistan/India are flash points. These currently stay contained largely because the US is cooperating with the rest of the world. Romney has shown his ability to cooperate or his aptitude for diplomacy is nil and his backers include most of the military-industrial complex. I'd say the likelihood of multilateral war is higher today than it has been at any point in the last fifty years, and I don't see Romney negotiating the waters to keep local wars contained.

He won't need to start it. He just won't stop it.

[AverageJoe90]

73. Even with flashpoints, it STILL isn't anywhere near likely.

I don't doubt there is a lot of potential for major regional conflicts out there, but Kurt, this isn't the 1950s, or the '80s.

I am a student of history. Multilateral war has not entirely passed into the history books, but the fact is it was far more likely 30 years ago. You had a still strong, though slowly weakening Soviet bloc(and a large number of paranoid Politburo people to boot!), and tensions between Russia and the U.S. were far, far, worse than they are today.

However, though, I can concede that it is possible that a second Cold War may come into fruition, especially with a nutter like Romney in the White House. And if it does begin to happen, then the dynamics could very well begin to change for the worst. Right now, though, the triggers for WWIII just aren't there for the most part; on the other hand, you can have a nuclear conflict without the traditional Russia-vs-America scenario; Pakistan could invade India and Iran could nuke Israel(or the other way around!). But due to today's dynamics, it would be far harder to make a plausible WWIII scenario in the present day, even with possible 'chaos' scenarios taken into account, than in the '80s.

[kurt_cagle]

162. Not totally agreed.

The cold war was primarily about hegemony - two large empires that were fighting proxy conflicts, but that had effectively established a stalemate. Europe was growing economically and politically, the US was growing economically and politically, Russia and China were both stagnant but relatively stable, inwardly focused. The Middle east was largely still controlled by colonial powers.

Today, resource issues are the primary driver - access to oil, water, rare earths, natural gas. Europe is in economic and increasingly political chaos, China is facing a major recession with a large and vocal middle class and a thirst for oil, the Middle east is increasingly aligning along Islamic fault lines, Russia is creeping back towards authoritarianism and has a chokehold control over natural gas into Europe, and Southeast Asia, including Japan, China, Singapore Korea and by extension Malaysia and Australia, are becoming a powerful economic bloc. Oil production globally has stalled and is declining in many regions, fresh water access is becoming critical in many parts of the world, and climate change issues are changing the location of productive vs. non-productive farmland. As I see it, this only increases the likelihood of conflict, and increases the potential that the major economic hegemonies will be thrown directly into conflict, rather than via proxies.

Consequently, I'm a lot less sanguine about regional conflicts escalating into global wars than at just about any time in the last sixty years.

[AverageJoe90]

163. Some good points here, but.....

These things do not necessarily mean that WWIII is more likely, and in fact, the probability of a traditional WWIII scenario(that is, global atomic war), has gone down immensely since 1991. However, though, there are a couple of factors that can be considered that I feel may complicate things:

1.)Nuclear terrorism-There have been dozens of Soviet nukes that HAVE gone missing in recent years, and if, say, America invades Iran or if Russia decides to ultimately and finally crack down on Central Asian and Causacian separatists and other troublemakers, then it is possible that a group like Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, or even perhaps, dare I say, the Muslim Brotherhood, gets ahold of nukes and decides that a certain moment would be the time to attack Russia, the U.S., or somewhere in Europe. Basically, 9/11 times 1,000, and it might not just be one nuke, either.

2.)The start of, and eventual build-up of, a Second Cold War, on the lines of the First-IMO, this one isn't too terribly likely at the moment, but if someone such as Scott Walker, or Mitt Romney, or even, god forbid, Mike Huckabee, wins the White House, this possibility goes up considerably.

And of course, a disastrous scenario doesn't necessarily have to equal WW3: Israel could go Samson if invaded and hit hard enough....oil prices would skyrocket and could stay high for some years, and the Middle East would be a mess for decades to come. Even worse, both Russia and the U.S. could see a future 9/11, maybe worse!

[Honeycombe8]

69. HE won't. But he'll sign off on the neocon's new war, like GWB did. He's weak...

and is just a suit that the GOP is hoping to get into the W.H. to sign off on whatever they put in front of him.

This was the way it was with Reagan, IMO. (although they got upset with Reagan, because Reagan started acting like he was a President!)

This was the way it was with GWB. It took GWB a looooong time to catch on (about the time Scooter was sentenced for intentionally leaking Valerie Plame's identity for Cheney). GWB refused to pardon him.

I think Romney is more like GWB. A bully, concerned with himself and his money, wants badly to be President, not having core principles. But Romney is worse than GWB. He really seems not to have any core principles at all. He'll say anything, do anything, to be President.

That's how I know he'd sign off on a war, if told to do that by his neocons. Just like GWB did.

[AverageJoe90]

75. That much is very true. n/t

[BlueStreak]

79. When you build a war machine, you have to use it.

[AverageJoe90]

82. Yes, I don't doubt that. nt

[brush]

81. WWIII?

We're not afraid of a war in China or Russia, it's the Middle East we have to worry about. And Ryan practically said it in the debate with the Veep that they would intervene militarily in Iran. Both Russia and China are on record being against that. Romney has shown diplomacy isn't his strong suit so he might very well start something over there.

[jmowreader]

85. I don't think he will start World War III

What he will start will make the Great Depression look like a mild cyclic downturn, and the Great Recession look like a rounding error.

[AverageJoe90]

87. Very, very true.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Repub admin. DID start the next great depression, especially if we get entangled with Iran.

[deathrind]

88. Romney...

May not intentionally start WWIII... but he could certainly stumble his way into it. Romney thinks foreign policy can be negotiated like a hostile takeover of a corporation. It does not work that way. "My way or the highway" does not work when negotiating with other sovereign nations. This is something republicans do not seem to understand.

[quinnox]

90. yea, the doom and gloomers are always around, but they have been fairly quiet compared to past years

The Doomers always have things like this to say, I guess they aren't happy unless they make Armageddon like scenarios to motivate themselves to vote or for whatever reason.

But to me, they have been quiet compared to the past, we used to have a lot more threads started by this contingent.

[AverageJoe90]

109. TBH, I think you're probably right about this, at least as far as DU is concerned.

This is mainly a problem with sites like YouTube, etc.....and yeah, I agree with what you've said and that I've noticed a similar issue in the E&E (Environment & Energy) forum as well(though that's a story for another topic).

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and I hope I am, but I'm afraid that the GOP will literally do just about anything to smear us Democrats. It's gotten that bad.

[Agnosticsherbet]

91. WWIII is hyperbole, he will just start a war, Iran being the most likely target...

WWIII could happen, yes, and there are probably several ways to get there. No one will start it on purpose. Like WWI and WWII, there would be a series of mistakes and escalations.

As one scenario....

US attacks Iran, likely in concert with Israel to end Iran's reported nuclear ambitions, or Israel attacks with our aid.
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt go to war with Israel and US. This causes massive problems with oil deliveries from the middle-east. Muslims in Europe, especially in France, explode in violence in sympathy. Who does Russia, China, and India, side with when the middle-east explode? What to the Saudis do? Turkey?

But it isn't started on purpose. Romney isn't Alexander or Hitler.

[AverageJoe90]

110. Yeah.

What does worry me, though, is if PNAC gets to restart the Cold War. I'm afraid that, at least, may be inevitable with a Romney presidency.

[ejbr]

93. Here I am...

[Fire Walk With Me]

94. It's only about the oil. Iran is the remaing independent top five reserves

and they supply Russian and China. I believe China have just changed their oil currency from the dollar to the yuan. Gaddafy attempted to do that with gold and what happened to him. Saddam too? I don't remember, but Iraq was the other remaining "independent" top 5 oil reserves in the world. Now four of them are controlled by US-friendly powers. Russia and China won't want the last to end there as well. As a result, there are at least four US nuclear aircraft carriers currently in the Straight of Hormuz, along with warships from some 20+ other nations.

We are already facing an attack upon Iran, bouyed by harsh regulations causing upset inside the nation to soften them up.

[Strelnikov_]

96. Russia is the No. 2 oil exporter last time I checked, and will be runaway No. 1

if KSA facilities are damaged.

They already are the worlds largest combined exporter of petroleum and natural gas.

Russia is playing both sides of this issue as cover, but have no doubt, they will be the only winner of an Iran conflict (if it does not spin out of control, which is the reason form the cover).

Putin's dissertation addressed using Russia's energy resources to exert power. A liquid fuels 'panic' would
prove an excellent opportunity to initiate the 'petrorouble'.


Putin has long been nursing ambitions of using Russia's vast oil and gas supplies as an instrument of power. In the mid '90s, after 15 years in the KGB, Putin went back to school, attending the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. He wrote a dissertation titled "Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company." The topic: how to use energy resources for grand strategic planning.

“In the early stages of pro-market reforms in Russia the state temporarily lost strategic control over the mineral resources industry. This led to the stagnation and disintegration of the geological sector built over many decades…. However, today the market euphoria of the early years of economic reform is gradually giving room to a more balanced approach that... recognises the need for a regulatory role of the state.”

- Vladimir Putin, “Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company.”, PhD dissertation, St. Petersburg Mining Institute


”The Rouble must become a more widespread means of international transactions. To this end, we need to open a stock exchange in Russia to trade in oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for in Roubles. Our goods are traded on global markets. Why are not they traded in Russia?”

— President Vladimir Putin, Speaking before the full Russian parliament, Cabinet and international reporters, May 2006


”Russia has found the Achilles’ heel of the US colossus. In concert with its oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil-market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy-security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East”

- W. Joseph Stroupe, author, Russian Rubicon: Impending Checkmate of the West, as quoted in the Asia Times, November 22, 2006


From the Russian perspective, the Saudi role and OPEC model have benefited the United States, which can pressure Saudi Arabia into opening the spigot to deal with supply emergencies; the US also pressures other oil producers, such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Indonesia, by military methods, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. In the Russian alternative, the US will be far less influential, and have fewer levers, commercial or military, to effect pressure on the energy suppliers. Russian arms and defense-industry partnerships are on offer to relatively weak, intervention-prone energy producers in Africa and Latin America to offset US pressure.

In the OPEC model, the benchmark is Brent crude, priced in US dollars. In the Russian model, the discount and disadvantage between the Brent and Urals benchmarks will be reduced, and pricing will evolve toward a currency basket, including the ruble. In the OPEC model, suppliers hold much of their cash and government securities in US controlled institutions. In the Russian model, cash is held in the form of a currency basket; conversion from cash is sought into non-US assets, particularly in the European market.

In the OPEC model, investment in new energy reserves should be open to, and may be controlled by, US corporations. In the Russian model, strategic reserves should be controlled by national companies, state-controlled champions, or joint ventures in which Russian interests are in the majority. The Russian model also extends to energy-convertible coal, uranium, and other mineral resources. Through negotiations for Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US, Australia, Canada and other resource-exporting states have sought to gain unlimited access to search and development of Russian minable resources.

The Russian model rejects this, and instead assigns priority and equity control of domestic resources to national resource companies. The model proposes tradeoffs and partnerships in resource exploitation in third countries, especially the developing states. The US-backed OPEC model assigns international priority to the Arab states. The Russian model assigns priority to the Central Asian alliance, including China, India, and Iran; secondarily to Latin America and ultimately Africa.”

- John Helmer, “Russian energy model challenges OPEC,” Asia Times, July 18, 2006,


http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/PDFs/Hysteria_Over_Iran_and_a_New_Cold_War_with_Russia.pdf (.pdf)

[Fire Walk With Me]

99. Yes, and oil is all that is required to begin another world war. "Peak oil" and all that.

Interesting. The last time I looked Canada and Venezuela were not on the list. Must be the shale reserves not previously thought feasible to refine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

[Strelnikov_]

106. A few (or more) years back Canada and Venezuela jumped to the top due to their tar sands

and in the case of Ven. heavy oil resource.

Debatable if tar sands are even a viable energy resource (in my opinion they are not) which led to questions if these resources should really be counted. Was some discussion on ranking reserves based on net energy potential, which is what really counts for industrial society.

[kiranon]

95. Mitt & the Neocons talk of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities and

being more active in Syria. Seems warlike to me. In the matter of Syria, Al Queda may be more involved than is generally understood. Mitt has no understanding of the Middle East and the Neocons will step in to fill the vacuum. Russia is a nonstarter. Mitt is just out to lunch on Russia being the U.S.'s biggest enemy.

[AverageJoe90]

113. Yeah. Still, though, his stupidity is frickin' worrisome. n/t

[Zoeisright]

97. Your concern is noted,

but it's very foolish and unnecessary.

[AverageJoe90]

112. Foolish? No. Unnecessary? I hope so.

But I'd rather be on guard. I'd like to be wrong on this but I can't shake that feeling.........maybe it's all the bad news we've had to deal with lately, I dunno.

[Lars39]

98. You're behind by one war...Richard Armitage has publicly stated WWIII has already occurred.

Romney would keep the war machine profits going.

[AverageJoe90]

111. I remember the first neo-con war myth.

I think they've changed their MO recently, though.

[RobertEarl]

100. Bush Tried. McCain's campaign song was Bomb Iran

The only reason a WWIII would not start with Romney is the fact that we control the shipping lanes. No one could do much damage before they were eliminated.

Otherwise, WWIII is already pretty much under way. We are at war all over the world it is just that the big powers are not foolish enough to go directly up against us. They do work in the background, tho.

Romney would invade Iran, keep the war going in Afghanistan, maybe re-invade Iraq, increase pressure in South America and get aggressive in Africa. That is some world wide shit. PNAC style.

And as to double talk, you seem to be real good at it Joe. Well above average even. All in all in this thread, you have made Romney look less evil than he really is.

[AverageJoe90]

114. You accusing me of being a Romney acolyte or something?

I hope not. He may not be Hitler but he is still very fucked up and god help us all if this asshole 'wins' this election. Because I do know this: women's rights WILL be flushed down the toilet. Criminal banksters WILL keep swindling the people. And Citizens United? That's just the start!

Believe me, the last thing I want is for WilLIARd Robme in the White House. And I know damn well that he'll try invading Iran, too.
So don't tell me that I'm double talking.

[RobertEarl]

117. I don't know, Joe

But talk like that just might give ammo to the republicans.

Know what i mean?

[AverageJoe90]

121. Well, frankly, I feel the same way about this WW3 talk. n/t

[RobertEarl]

123. Well, Joe,

You have been handed, several times, a plate of cold reality about war, and it seems it all went in one ear and out the other. Remember this: There are many here who were dealing with Vietnam before you were even born. Yet you just brush us off.

All the while making the case that Romney wouldn't do what many of his brethren have been wanting done. And all the while claiming time and time again that what we are saying about WW3 will just empower the very ones who have fucking stated time and again: "We should just turn the Middle East into glass."

To me, that is doublespeak. Orwellian, even.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Very concerning!

I agree: he'll turn the 99% into slaves who can only afford food by selling our internal organs as culinary treats for the 1%, but he won't start WW3.

[RobertEarl]

105. I get it now.

It won't be Romney who would start WW3. It will be the 99% fighting to get Romney's America off their land. Of Course! Anything that goes wrong is always the little people's fault!

It's like TEPCO, that nuclear power plant operator in Japan, said recently: "If we weren't fearful of the ramifications of making sure the place didn't blow up, we would have done something about it blowing up like it did. In other words, it's the people who told us to do something about it who are to blame for us not doing what needed to be done."

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Sums it up. nt

[AverageJoe90]

116. What do you mean? nt

[AverageJoe90]

118. Sorry, but I'm genuine.

I've been a supporter of the 99% since BEFORE Occupy was born.

And you better believe I'll be jumping for joy the day after Obama wins his second term in office. You can count on that.

[AgingAmerican]

103. Romney might start WW3 on accident

Because he is a moron when it comes to foreign policy and militarism.

[AverageJoe90]

115. Well, I dunno about WW3. Not yet.

But yes, Romney is a COMPLETE moron. Which is why we NEED to re-elect Obama.

Unlike Mittens would, Pres. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He got OBL after just two years for God's sakes! And Bush and the fucking neo-cons couldn't do it in 8!

[Corgigal]

104. Everyone is missing something

Romney's weakness is greed. The rich always make money on wars, not that I'm saying he will start WW3 but he will not think about it as kids dying but can I make more cash? Even W wasn't this simpleminded in his thinking. His children never served for a reason and it's because they think those that do are suckers. Then you add a mind full of greed and I see a judgment that should scare us all.

[AverageJoe90]

120. Very true, and Romney does scare me quite a bit.

Which is just one more reason I'm wholeheartedly supporting President Obama this year. He is a man with conscience, and is able to make wise choices. And he cares. RMoney can't possibly live up to any of that. EVER.

[aquart]

122. What will happen, in case you didn't notce this under Bush:

Nations will realign to leave the dangerously unstable US leadership out of any major decison-making. If World War III is in the offing, we won't be able to do a thing about it because we won't be asked.

It still boggles my mind that Venezuela is supplying its oil to China because we're too whatever-the-hell-we-are to negotiate with Chavez.

[AverageJoe90]

125. I think our attitude towards Venezuela's a stupid-ass mistake, too.

Hey, Chavez ain't perfect, but at least he's NOT a dictator, unlike the bastards who run Saudi Arabia at the moment. I'll take Venezuela's guy over King Abdullah any day.

[ibegurpard]

124. we're speculating that Romney's going to start WWIII?

news to me...

[Warpy]

126. We know he's hot for war, at least to pay off Sheldon Adelson

who is screaming for a ground war against Iran. His head foreign policy advisor is that walking international incident, Bolton. He is deeply ignorant of the reality of world affairs and seemingly incurious about them.

While I don't think he would knowingly start a world war, his ignorance combined with the belligerence of his backers and his team make another war we can't possibly either afford or win extremely likely if he is put into office.

Messing up the world's oil supply through ill considered wars resulting in disrupted shipping lanes will provoke an international response against the US.

If we are very lucky, we will face targeted trade embargoes and remember, we no longer make such basic items as cloth and shoes.

Romney suffers from the same problem as that last disastrous Republican in office: he is dismally ignorant of how a government works, he is dismally ignorant of foreign policy and he will leave running the country to men like Bolton, Bork, Gramm, and Norquist while he swans around for the cameras.

If this country is stupid enough to go through another such administration, it will likely not survive in its present form. This country's chances of winning any conflict are slim. We no longer make the commodities that would allow us to survive it.

[AverageJoe90]

127. Unfortunately, you could be very correct on this, Warpy.

An unprovoked war against Iran of any kind, and/or ANY invasion of that country, would break the bank for good. And I doubt we'll win, either. In fact, not only would it become another Vietnam but we'd have to worry about terrorism, too, even of the nuclear kind!

Yes, indeed, a Romney presidency would be disastrous in many ways. Let's fight for Obama and make our votes count!

[Fresh_Start]

129. romney has the backbone of jello

if he's a room with 10 people yelling war, he will fold and begin yelling war himself.
His absolute lack of any integrity makes him far more dangerous that you can imagine.

[moondust]

130. He wouldn't do it intentionally.

But I think he's quite capable of boldly stumbling into a major conflict due to some combination of greed, arrogance, overconfidence, impatience with diplomacy, lack of restraint, and a superficial understanding of foreign relations. It might also be difficult for him to gain the confidence of reluctant allies who know that his word is subject to change at any time.

[sibelian]

131. I don't think he has as much say in the matter as you assume. nt

[Hugabear]

135. Republicans are the party of peace.

Why would Romney ever go to war with Iran? He's never mentioned getting tough with them.

Just like he's never mentioned getting tough on Russia.

[AverageJoe90]

146. Romney's an idiot. He blusters a lot, just like Reagan did.

Only thing is, there was a very real danger of WWIII breaking out when he was in office. Nowadays, not nearly so much. Things have changed quite a bit since 1991, Hugabear.

Know this, though: Romney wins, an Iranian conflict may be quite inevitable. That I AM sure of.

[knitter4democracy]

156. Reagan was fracking dangerous!

The Iranian hostages, the Contras, the School of the Americans grads run amok, Chile, Bishop Romero, the 4 martyred churchwomen, Lebanon... He has the blood of millions on his hands. Hell, 9/11 couldn't have happened if he hadn't supported the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden to boot.

Reagan didn't bluster. He just didn't tell us what he was up to. Don't think Romney wouldn't do the same when he has the same people advising and working for him.

[lonestarnot]

136. WWIII? Of this I am sure, he would be glad to send anyone elses' kid to fight anything

IF he were ever to have that authority. It is the "authority" that is his interest. That is richie riches way of doing things. Big I little you. You should have capped IF.

[AverageJoe90]

144. That much is very, very, true.

And that's why we need to make sure that President Obama gets the second term he truly deserves. Because Romney will fuck things up even more than Bush did if elected.

[DemKittyNC]

137. Rmoney is dangerous

This man could start WW3 either on purpose or by complete accident due to his total inexperience and utter failure to understand anyone or anything outside of the multi-million dollar a year earning income yuppies. He has no respect for anyone else, no understanding or compassion and this makes him a very dangerous man! We can not let this idiot anywhere near the White House.

[AverageJoe90]

148. Yes, I can agree, he is very dangerous and will cause us MUCH trouble if elected.

On the other hand, though, WWIII, at least in the traditional sense, just isn't all that likely due to the developments that have occurred since then, even if Romney were to nuke Iran. Even so, though, I do recognize that there IS plenty of potential for a highly disastrous region wide war that could possibly result in Israel going to the Samson option and just nuking all of their enemies. Not really the end of the (whole) world, but the implications would be extreme, and goodness knows what could happen if terrorists get ahold of stolen nukes and find a way to mount a whole bunch of them on SCUDs or something. And then the economies of many nations, including ours could be in serious jeopardy, especially if Saudi Arabia gets trashed.

So I do very well realize the implications that could happen if that moron Mittens gets into the White House and does something extraordinarily stupid.

[Nikia]

151. You seem to have a narrow version of WWIII

In that you think that it would involve hundreds of millions killed by nuclear war. Not sure what would be WWIII or if any historian would refer to any conflict or series of conflicts as that.
His desire for much increased military budget suggests he wants us involved in more war(s). It will lead to our undoing. In trying to prove that we are a super power, we will lose that status. Now if this was the risk of a justified war against an aggressor like Hitler after he invaded multiple countries, it might be worth it. In this case, though we will be unnecessarily the aggressor.

[AverageJoe90]

152. I guess you do have a valid point, Nikia.

TBH, though, the reason I said what I said, is that(nuclear war)is the gist of much of what I've heard argued over the past few years on the 'Net.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that this continuation of empire-building will definitely at least majorly contribute to our undoing as a superpower, and that Romney WILL undoubtedly get us in lots of trouble.

Again, I would like to say, that you do indeed have a valid point: WWIII, especially in this day in age, doesn't have to be nuclear.

[DemKittyNC]

153. Yeah I wasn't really thinking nuclear either

but heaven forbid if Rmoney did win and he had his hand on the button who knows what that idiot might do. I was thinking more about his diplomatic skills when interacting with foreign leaders which I am certain he has no diplomacy skill at all. Rmoney is going to go into the White House with his own agenda and be dammed everyone else, that is clear and anyone who can't see that is completely aloof. This man is going to push his secret agenda and run over everyone. He is building the military up even though it is not called for so he has every intention of going to war or else pissing off enough people overseas enough to get someone to attack us. My guess would be going to war. I would not be surprised if he put our ground troops into Iran and of course back or keep them in Afghanistan, probably a build up there as well. I wouldn't be surprised if he egged Russia on and tried to get into a war with them, of course China wouldn't take that and that would start off WW3 right there. Or maybe I am just paranoid but the point is Rmoney needs to go away and never be mentioned again... lol

[NashvilleLefty]

157. Who has said this? Why are you making up issues that don't don't exist?

It is true that Rmoney has pissed off every allied country that he's visited, and that his rhetoric towards Iran is really over the top - But I have never, ever seen anyone here claim that he will start WW3.

Perhaps you have us confused with another site? Although I don't know of any site that has made this claim except for RW sites.

[AverageJoe90]

158. Nye Bevan found this link a while back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=260183

So yeah, they're out there. If I hadn't noticed this stuff over the past several months I wouldn't be bringing this up(DU tends to be LOTS better than YouTube, though.).

And also:

It is true that Rmoney has pissed off every allied country that he's visited, and that his rhetoric towards Iran is really over the top

Believe me when I say that I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.

I don't know. It's possible that I may be worried over nothing but I wasn't so sure when I wrote this.

[21 December 2012]

159. pretty sure WW3 has already started...at least, the *August 1939* antics anyway

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's the likely-misuse of GI's & all resources, thereof, is what has us spooked about Romney.

[jqanderson1]

164. Romney and WW3

Here my take on a Romney presidency:

I don't think he'll start WW3 but I think he is so stupid on foreign affairs that he might blunder us into it.

These are almost guarantees:

1. He'll turn Israel lose to attack Iran.
2. He'll get us involved in the Syrian conflict.

#1 - By turning Israel lose to attack Iran, this will cause Iran AND Russia to counter-attack. Why Russia?
Putin has already said that any country that attacks Iran will face "grave consequences". I believe they
(Iran and Russia) would level Israel. What will Mitt do then?

#2 - Somehow I feel that we'll end up with ground troops in Syria. If we do they will eventually be fighting
Russian troops. I see this as even more dangerous than Iran. This will cause an escalation of conflicts into
several other countries and could easily get out of hand really fast.

I don't think Putin will be very shy about using nuclear weapons. If his troops are getting their butts kicked
thoughout the Middle East, I see it happening.

Romney will either blunder us into WW3 or have to back down to the Russians. I don't see him backing down.
His stupidity is the most serious threat to the security of this country since Al Qaeda started the so-called
war of terror.