Raimondo Says War Imminent

By -
From his pessimistic (but I can't say unrealistic) article:

It is almost certain we will be at war with Iran before a new President is inaugurated: now that Obama has capitulated to the Lobby, nothing but Divine Providence can stop it.

I have nothing intelligent to add at this time, except to say it would really s*ck if we started another war over there. No, this isn't even scratching the surface of the ramifications, but just for example, I think Raimondo is perfectly correct that oil could go to $300 per barrel. It's not just Iran that would shut us out; I think other OPEC countries would too. They're flush with cash right now; they could go cold turkey for a month or two if the US starting bombing Iran.

I really hope Raimondo is wrong about this.

Comments

  1. Tim Swanson1:34 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim Swanson1:36 PM

    I can't say one way or the other (it certainly won't make Koreans like me more).

    However, you might be interested in this weekly updated map: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s_naval_update_map_june_4_2008

    Keep an eye on the USS Peleliu. It's one of those big amphibious assault ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Peleliu_(LHA-5)) and is headed to the Western Pacific (it is temporarily in port at Singapore) but will head further west.

    Guess where it operated last year? Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah6:17 PM

    I'm puzzled how Raimondo's can hold that Obama's 'capitulation' is crucial here, but at the same time contend that there is a rush to have this war before Bush leaves office. If Obama has really gotten 'on board' with war on Iran, then it would seem to me that the change of administrations has been rendered moot. What's more, if he hadn't made those recent remarks, how would that constrain the lame-duck Bush administration from doing whatever they want prior to his taking office -- after all, they have a couple of months in which to act after the election, when their decisions could not possibly endanger McCain's chances, since he already will have won or lost.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:56 PM

    I agree with Gene on this:"If Obama has really gotten 'on board' with war on Iran, then it would seem to me that the change of administrations has been rendered moot."

    Bob, I think you could add alot. Do you believe we will be at war with Iran before January 20, 2009. When do you believe oil will be $300/barrel. I vote neither will occur before 1/20/09.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy9:06 PM

    I am not making any more public oil predictions.

    I haven't studied the situation enough to talk reasonably about it. I would like to think prudence would prevent it, but that also would have ruled out (in my opinion) Iraq invasion.

    I agree that Raimondo's arguments are a little confusing regarding Obama. You could try to salvage it by saying something like, "If they thought Obama might just yank the troops out, they wouldn't start something. But now they know he's 'reasonable,' and so they'll take the blame for starting it, but leave him to continue it."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy9:07 PM

    Tim,

    You have to spell it out for me. Are you saying this means war with Iran is more or less likely?

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah9:23 PM

    Bob, that is a reasonable interpretation of JR's remarks -- perhaps that is what he meant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:26 AM

    I was just thinking...I think Israel just threatened Iran in a big way. Perhaps the war inclined Bush administration told them, "hey, can you guys start with them and of course we will have to come help you. Flat out starting with Iran is not politically feasable but saving our ally is noble"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:22 PM

    Yeah, having Bush/Cheney start the war and then passing the mess to Obama would allow hawks set up a nice Stabbed in the Back narrative (if the war in fact goes badly), whereas waiting for Obama to start and make a mess of the war might discredit adventurism per se. Of course if the war goes "well" (from a statist scumbag/Joe Sixpack perspective) then adventurism gains political credibility, whoever happens to be in office. So it's win/win for the hawks to start before Obama and then leave the war to him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:14 PM

    It is my impression that the out of power party often rails against whichever foreign conflict the U.S. is in and whe nthey run a peace campaign and get in office they "meet with the military advisors and 'trust me' we better stay in if you knew what I now know". Wow, I'm telling you we better stay in, trust me (of course I can't tell you why).

    If obama wins, he will keep us in Iraq after he 'learns' what is really our 'threat'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob Murphy11:04 AM

    For sure Obama is not pulling the troops out of Iraq. E.g. his rhetoric he distinguishes himself from McCain: "He wants to continue the war in Iraq, I want to end it." Not, "I will end it."

    I think if Obama really were going to pull out the troops he wouldn't make it to election day.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more