Sunday, September 27, 2009

post mongering

the four horsemen approach, sipsey st.
Now, I present the analysis by Ralph Peters below as an example of clear strategic thinking by a first class military observer.

he might have been, at one point.

i think the iranian reaction suggested here is largely a projection from what the united states or israeli government would do if it was attacked: overreact. $400/barrel is a real threat, and could happen in such an event, but it only really lasts for a limited time. the response from the rest the world would be overwhelming. futures contracts at a sudden spike to that price would be dropped on the floor. stockpiles would grow, but producers would still need to sell to find a way to service short-term debt. if it previously put oil at $150/barrel to find another way to deliver it, many would begin to consider that option.

better yet, environmentalists here at home who realize they can't recharge their batteries because no oil generators are driving the grid power might take a second look at nuclear power plants! nevermind the continued support of oil importers while simultaneously grumbling about it because they just saw a michael moore "documentary," perhaps the new focus will be on energy delivery, period. the market always compensates, even in a catastrophe. personally, i trust the market like i trust any other natural, god-given order.

initially, what takes away from analysis of this looming catastrophe is some of the other contents of this article which are 100% bogus.

it's not true that a "dirty bomb" poses any real threat, besides the conventional explosion, and the proposition that the cleanup crew will be employed by the government, and thus take too long, cost too much, and only complete 90% of the work.

it's not true that mahmoud-the-bigmouth stated that israel should be "wiped off the map," but that actual suggestion is biblically accurate, anyways. all governments will be "wiped off the map" in the context he's talking about, most especially one that the united nations established in the holy lands! you might recall that at the reestablishment of the state of israel, jerusalem was to be UN-administered.

it seems to me the imam has a healthy understanding of luke 4:5-8. there's a difference between government as we know it and civil dominion as exposited by the old testament, and understood by everybody with an eye to read, whether they're an imam or a pope or just some guy on the internet that you don't like much.

as for being faith-crazed, if he could be called that, then obviously so could i. you could (and "progressives" DO) make the same argument against anyone with the slightest bit of principles back here at home, so long as they're inspired of faith and are supported by beliefs, instead of the popular progressive ideology.

"faith-crazed" is what those who are "dogmatic without knowing it" call those who are openly dogmatic about taking the moral high ground and doing the right thing.

but there's one more aspect which again takes away a chunk of the whole thing: ralph peters himself, as there is of course no objective viewpoint, and his is majorly fucked.
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

an interesting motivation for expecting trouble in iran. you'll note he also "analyzed" the expected outcome in iraq. if i were ralph peters, i would collect my check, clean out my desk, and give wolfowitz and perle their pen back.