Verbal Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Yes, because babies being tortured and having their heads cut off are just plain statistics in the bigger picture of satisfying left-wing Western sensibilities... And this applies to my remarks WHY?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 And this applies to my remarks WHY?!! You want the Iranians to revolt in the same way as the Syrians, even though the Syrian authorities are getting directions from the Iranian authorities on how to manage the rebellion. Well, seems to me if you rebel in the same way against a regime with the same mentality, you will get the same result; dictator still in place, many innocent people including babies tortured and slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 By the same token, let's hope the Iranian opposition Green movement learns from the Syrian rebellion. Think if they try and learn from anyone they would be more likely to fail. Don't think "Open" revolution wil hack it the crackdown will be brutal. Perhaps just simply "giving up", taking 3 months sick leave, all turn to religion & give up work - basically shut down the economy in a peaceful manner may work. Don't think banners & marches will work there, it would get really nasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Think if they try and learn from anyone they would be more likely to fail. Don't think "Open" revolution wil hack it the crackdown will be brutal. Perhaps just simply "giving up", taking 3 months sick leave, all turn to religion & give up work - basically shut down the economy in a peaceful manner may work. Don't think banners & marches will work there, it would get really nasty Completely agree. I view Iran as the falling domino that triggered the fundamentalist uprising from the 70s onwards. I also think its fall would trigger the opposite process. There is simply too much at stake here for fundamenalist Islam to loosen its grip in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 You want the Iranians to revolt in the same way as the Syrians, even though the Syrian authorities are getting directions from the Iranian authorities on how to manage the rebellion. Well, seems to me if you rebel in the same way against a regime with the same mentality, you will get the same result; dictator still in place, many innocent people including babies tortured and slaughtered. That is one of the weirdest things I've read in a while. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Completely agree. I view Iran as the falling domino that triggered the fundamentalist uprising from the 70s onwards. I also think its fall would trigger the opposite process. There is simply too much at stake here for fundamenalist Islam to loosen its grip in Iran. Don't you think it's tiny bit funny that you're repeating the same dumbass error you made much earlier in this thread? Iran is Shia. The fundamentalism of al Qaeda is Sunni. Both sides of the religion loathe each other. There is no 'domino'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 Don't you think it's tiny bit funny that you're repeating the same dumbass error you made much earlier in this thread? Iran is Shia. The fundamentalism of al Qaeda is Sunni. Both sides of the religion loathe each other. There is no 'domino'. In my opinion all of the current day coexistence/tolerance issues between Islam and everyone else go back to the toppling of the Shah. I think you make too much of the Shiite/Sunni distinction. Al Qaeda is not the only organisation at the sharp-end of the problems between Islam and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 In my opinion all of the current day coexistence/tolerance issues between Islam and everyone else go back to the toppling of the Shah. I think you make too much of the Shiite/Sunni distinction. Al Qaeda is not the only organisation at the sharp-end of the problems between Islam and everyone else. That is, I'm afraid, completely wrong. The toppling of the Shah had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda, nor any terrorist outrage in the West since 1979 or 9/11. (You will no doubt interpret this, in your bone-headed way, as my 'support' for the Iranian clerics, which also couldn't be further from the truth. It is a horrific regime.) Given the chance, bin Laden would have happily had murdered every single Shia cleric in Iran. Iran's meddling extends essentially to southern Iraq and its financial support of Hezbollah. The problems to do with al Qaeda have everything to do with Saudi Arabia, and its export of its Wahhabi sectarian take on Sunni Islam to Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is a huge subject, but one that deserves to be understood properly; your 'received wisdom' (!!) is no substitute. All I can suggest is that you either continue to wallow in your ignorant pit or you learn something about the history of modern Salafist Islam and its terrorist variants. BTW, I've given up trying to plumb the depths of your stupidity over the 'baby murdering' comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 That is, I'm afraid, completely wrong. The toppling of the Shah had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda, nor any terrorist outrage in the West since 1979 or 9/11. (You will no doubt interpret this, in your bone-headed way, as my 'support' for the Iranian clerics, which also couldn't be further from the truth. It is a horrific regime.) Given the chance, bin Laden would have happily had murdered every single Shia cleric in Iran. Iran's meddling extends essentially to southern Iraq and its financial support of Hezbollah. The problems to do with al Qaeda have everything to do with Saudi Arabia, and its export of its Wahhabi sectarian take on Sunni Islam to Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is a huge subject, but one that deserves to be understood properly; your 'received wisdom' (!!) is no substitute. All I can suggest is that you either continue to wallow in your ignorant pit or you learn something about the history of modern Salafist Islam and its terrorist variants. BTW, I've given up trying to plumb the depths of your stupidity over the 'baby murdering' comment. God, this is tedious. You lecture everyone, then tell them they are wrong, then come out with useless irrelevant factlets you've ponced off Wikipedia in order to show everyone what a big swinging dikk you've got. And at the end of all that, you cannot even read other peoples posts properly. I never said, hinted or expelled a gentle whiff of methane gas from my sphincter that indicated that the toppling of the Shah was down to Al Qaeda. Worth an infraction. It's been a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 January, 2012 Share Posted 20 January, 2012 God, this is tedious. You lecture everyone, then tell them they are wrong, then come out with useless irrelevant factlets you've ponced off Wikipedia in order to show everyone what a big swinging dikk you've got. And at the end of all that, you cannot even read other peoples posts properly. I never said, hinted or expelled a gentle whiff of methane gas from my sphincter that indicated that the toppling of the Shah was down to Al Qaeda. Worth an infraction. It's been a while... No, that's WRONG!! The fall of the Shah really has NOTHING to do with 'co-existence' problems. It was always a regional issue, and never impacted upon the West except in the limited ways already discussed. The 'Islamisation' of Pakistan, Afghanistan (both formerly heavily influenced, even dominated, by Sufism - a term which is going to send you into a tailspin, I'm sure) is down to Saudi influence that began with the rise to power of Zia in Pakistan and the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. Before that, you need to understand the role of Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and especially Abdullah Azzam, to really appreciate where the 'war of civilizations' really comes from. By the way, if you think I gleaned all or any of this from Wikipedia, that's your prerogative. Speaking as someone who's travelled regularly to Pakistan since 1986, as well as to other parts of South Asia and the Middle East (especially Syria, including Homs and Deraa), I am usually encouraged to find that others have taken the trouble to learn about those places. Very occasionally, though, it's possible (only just) to encounter the kind of ignorance - yours - that leaves me dumbfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 February, 2012 A couple of new stories to report. First, we have news that there is a growing view amongst US officials that either Israel or the US will strike at Iran, with the sweet-spot being earmarked as September/October. At around the same time, William Hague has warned of Iranian nuclear armament leading to a new Cold War. Personally, I worry about a US/Israeli first-strike. Russia and China enjoy much better relations with Iran than the West - there is a good chance of proxy war under these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 February, 2012 Share Posted 18 February, 2012 Is it really in Chinas interests to wage a proxy war with the US? Their empire is an economic one. Is it really in their interests to wage a war with 25% of the worlds GDP? I think they'd say broadly neutral and eventually put their foot down on Iran. Russia, however is a totally different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 February, 2012 Not sure that precludes them being involved, if I'm honest. While it is true that China's current power is economic, I think we can both agree that it is looking to modernise its military, and it's developing technology designed to take out US materiel. In many senses, a proxy war would be an ideal way for a country like China to exert a bit of power. They don't necessarily have to get involved themselves, but they can certainly finance it or be an unofficial part of the supply chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 February, 2012 Share Posted 18 February, 2012 Perhaps, but I really don't think China is too interested in waging wars. Economic wars yes, but military ones, I feel not(with Taiwan as an exception). The days of that kind of empire are over in my opinion. Capitalism provides an alternative route to world domination. Then again, I'm not that up on Sino-Iranian relations. Why is it in Chinas interests for Iran to win such a war as opposed to US/Israel, bar Middle Eastern influence/oil(though we aren't buying their oil anymore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 February, 2012 Share Posted 18 February, 2012 Is it really in Chinas interests to wage a proxy war with the US? Their empire is an economic one. Is it really in their interests to wage a war with 25% of the worlds GDP? I think they'd say broadly neutral and eventually put their foot down on Iran. Russia, however is a totally different story. I tend to agree. The Sino-US relationship is a complex and interrelated one, with the US (to some extent) reliant on cheap Chinese imports, while huge Chinese investments in the US would potentially be at risk in any future confrontation. Furthermore most of China's vast international trade depends upon their ability to ship their manufactured goods by sea. It is only a small exaggeration to say that the mighty United States Navy today almost literally 'rules the waves' in a similar manner to which our Royal Navy once did during the 'Pax Britannica' era. To this day it is control of the world's seaways - not the size of your army - that remains the surest test of who is a real superpower, and who isn't yet. However, that is not to say this current balance of economic & military power can endure indefinitely because the pendulum of world power is swinging remorselessly ...... to the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 February, 2012 Share Posted 18 February, 2012 I tend to agree. The Sino-US relationship is a complex and interrelated one, with the US (to some extent) reliant on cheap Chinese imports, while huge Chinese investments in the US would potentially be at risk in any future confrontation. Furthermore most of China's vast international trade depends upon their ability to ship their manufactured goods by sea. It is only a small exaggeration to say that the mighty United States Navy today almost literally 'rules the waves' in a similar manner to which our Royal Navy once did during the 'Pax Britannica' era. To this day it is control of the world's seaways - not the size of your army - that remains the surest test of who is a real superpower, and who isn't yet. However, that is not to say this current balance of economic & military power can endure indefinitely because the pendulum of world power is swinging remorselessly ...... to the East. That is true, but the US is desperately trying to look that way and group itself over the pacific to the east rather than to us in Europe to the west. Saw an interesting stat the other day, that as Chinas and the East GDP share has risen dramatically, it isn't actually the US's share of GDP that has been going down, it has been to the expense of Europe's share. And the US seems to be coming out of its economic doldrums now as well. I think I have, and others in fairness, may have underestimated the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2012 That is true, but the US is desperately trying to look that way and group itself over the pacific to the east rather than to us in Europe to the west. Saw an interesting stat the other day, that as Chinas and the East GDP share has risen dramatically, it isn't actually the US's share of GDP that has been going down, it has been to the expense of Europe's share. And the US seems to be coming out of its economic doldrums now as well. I think I have, and others in fairness, may have underestimated the US. GDP can be an incredibly misleading statistic as an indicator of the health of a society, particularly when making comparisons with the US. Many of the public services we enjoy in the UK, such as universal healthcare, are essentially industries over there, meaning that part of GDP over there is reliant on people being ill. Same thing with privatised prisons and the like. The money that the private security firms makes is included in GDP, but again, GDP is being raised by something we essentially wish to avoid, such as locking loads of people up. As for the intent of the various superpowers with respect to Iran, it's difficult to predict which way things will go. At the very least, China will be looking to ensure that the economic empire they have built continues to expand and is protected by a capable military force. Further than that, I don't know - but some analysts paint China as a company looking to catch up with the US on all fronts, including military. Then you look at international perception. We are perhaps guilty of having a very Western-centric black and white view of the world, in which the assembled forces of Western democracies are nothing but paragons of freedom. People around the world will have different views, and you don't have to travel too far to hear them. If the US is involved in a second war of aggression, then that's only really going to feed the enmity of people who have a slightly less than stellar opinion of the US, and has the potential to inflame the whole region. That all said, the most recent reports paint Israel as the most likely nation to launch a first strike on Iran. William Hague was on the Andrew Marr show this morning warning them against this course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 GDP can be an incredibly misleading statistic as an indicator of the health of a society, particularly when making comparisons with the US. Many of the public services we enjoy in the UK, such as universal healthcare, are essentially industries over there, meaning that part of GDP over there is reliant on people being ill. Same thing with privatised prisons and the like. The money that the private security firms makes is included in GDP, but again, GDP is being raised by something we essentially wish to avoid, such as locking loads of people up. As for the intent of the various superpowers with respect to Iran, it's difficult to predict which way things will go. At the very least, China will be looking to ensure that the economic empire they have built continues to expand and is protected by a capable military force. Further than that, I don't know - but some analysts paint China as a company looking to catch up with the US on all fronts, including military. Then you look at international perception. We are perhaps guilty of having a very Western-centric black and white view of the world, in which the assembled forces of Western democracies are nothing but paragons of freedom. People around the world will have different views, and you don't have to travel too far to hear them. If the US is involved in a second war of aggression, then that's only really going to feed the enmity of people who have a slightly less than stellar opinion of the US, and has the potential to inflame the whole region. What a load of anti American (-led West) drivel. No-one could accuse you of being Wetern-centric; Western-phobic more like. How unfortunate that you abuse the freedom that would be denied to you under your Chinese heroes. I for one would rather live under the shadow of America economic might than Chinese economic might, and am delighted that the US seem determined to retain their world power standing and wont roll over and give up like the UK did. If you really are trying to insinuate that China usurping Amercia as the main economic influence in our lives is a good thing, then you really are as clueless as your demented meanderings demonstrate. As if China would be any less of a bully than the US is (according to you). After all, it just vetoed a genuine attempt in the UN to stop the genocide and atrocities going on in Syria in order to stick one up at the US and to support its economic strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 20 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 February, 2012 More on the Iran situation from Radio 4's Today Programme. Both the US and the UK are extremely averse to attack. Apparently, Israel are getting to the point where they might. That will complicate things apparently, as the US, for internal political reasons, won't be able to condemn a first strike - so they're in the position where they either condone Israel's activity or actively support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 More on the Iran situation from Radio 4's Today Programme. Both the US and the UK are extremely averse to attack. Apparently, Israel are getting to the point where they might. That will complicate things apparently, as the US, for internal political reasons, won't be able to condemn a first strike - so they're in the position where they either condone Israel's activity or actively support it. Your conclusion, or that of a lefty BBC correspondent ? What a load of cr*p. They could just take no official position on it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 HMMM would a arms race in the middle east be a good thing...? i suspect not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 20 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 February, 2012 (edited) Your conclusion, or that of a lefty BBC correspondent ? What a load of cr*p. They could just take no official position on it all. Nope, unfortunately just the things that have been said by Government representatives, etc. William Hague was on the Andrew Marr show explicitly warning against the prospects of Israel conducting a first strike, so I'm not entirely sure that this is a sentiment that is an exclusive concern of one side of the political spectrum. Edited 20 February, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 Your conclusion, or that of a lefty BBC correspondent ? What a load of cr*p. They could just take no official position on it all. Do you really have to sound like such an hysteric every time you post with someone you disagree with? Pap has done you the undeserved honour of replying civilly (although he used far too many syllables for you in doing so) - why don't you try out something similar in monosyllables? And I always come back to the BBC=lefty brigade with a simple question: which programme or news report are you suggesting is socialist in some way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 20 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 February, 2012 What a load of anti American (-led West) drivel. No-one could accuse you of being Wetern-centric; Western-phobic more like. How unfortunate that you abuse the freedom that would be denied to you under your Chinese heroes. I for one would rather live under the shadow of America economic might than Chinese economic might, and am delighted that the US seem determined to retain their world power standing and wont roll over and give up like the UK did. If you really are trying to insinuate that China usurping Amercia as the main economic influence in our lives is a good thing, then you really are as clueless as your demented meanderings demonstrate. As if China would be any less of a bully than the US is (according to you). After all, it just vetoed a genuine attempt in the UN to stop the genocide and atrocities going on in Syria in order to stick one up at the US and to support its economic strategies. I've only just seen this, so you'll have to forgive me for replying out of order, so to speak. Thing is, it's difficult to argue with someone when:- a) they characterise your entire post as drivel. b) they bafflingly draw the wrong conclusions from the verbose qualification provided. To clarify then, I'm not saying that China as the next superpower is necessarily a good thing. As you point out yourself, they are presently vetoing action against Syria when I think we can both agree that Assad's regime is doing despicable things to Syrians. In a sense, that hardly matters. China will be, if it isn't already, a global superpower. Further, the US's "economic might" is being propped up in large part with loans from China. Hmm. Doesn't sound too mighty to me. Let's veer onto foreign perception, shall we? China rightly attracts criticism for the heavy clampdown in student demonstrations in 1989 and its attitude to Tibet and Taiwan. I could enumerate all the coups and illegal invasions that the US have started, but we've already done that in relation to Iran. Am I saying that China wouldn't be as much as a bully as the US when it eventually reaches parity on a military level? Of course not, but the US has the disadvantage of being in the position where they have already done their meddling, and they'll be judged accordingly. It's not really a case of good guys versus bad guys. If you want that, I would suggest any recent Hollywood film. If you want to understand geopolitics, you need to be able to put yourself in the shoes of those who would be involved, whether they're on your "good guy" list or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 Nope, unfortunately just the things that have been said by Government representatives, etc. William Hague was on the Andrew Marr show explicitly warning against the prospects of Israel conducting a first strike, so I'm not entirely sure that this is a sentiment that is an exclusive concern of one side of the political spectrum. I was talking about the American government response. They dont have to condone, condemn OR actively support. They can just saying nothing and let Bibi and Co. get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 February, 2012 Share Posted 20 February, 2012 I've only just seen this, so you'll have to forgive me for replying out of order, so to speak. Thing is, it's difficult to argue with someone when:- a) they characterise your entire post as drivel. b) they bafflingly draw the wrong conclusions from the verbose qualification provided. To clarify then, I'm not saying that China as the next superpower is necessarily a good thing. As you point out yourself, they are presently vetoing action against Syria when I think we can both agree that Assad's regime is doing despicable things to Syrians. In a sense, that hardly matters. China will be, if it isn't already, a global superpower. Further, the US's "economic might" is being propped up in large part with loans from China. Hmm. Doesn't sound too mighty to me. Let's veer onto foreign perception, shall we? China rightly attracts criticism for the heavy clampdown in student demonstrations in 1989 and its attitude to Tibet and Taiwan. I could enumerate all the coups and illegal invasions that the US have started, but we've already done that in relation to Iran. Am I saying that China wouldn't be as much as a bully as the US when it eventually reaches parity on a military level? Of course not, but the US has the disadvantage of being in the position where they have already done their meddling, and they'll be judged accordingly. It's not really a case of good guys versus bad guys. If you want that, I would suggest any recent Hollywood film. If you want to understand geopolitics, you need to be able to put yourself in the shoes of those who would be involved, whether they're on your "good guy" list or not. Right, so you are willing to give China "the benefit of the doubt" because in YOUR opinion their length of crimes is less than the Americans. Rightyho, how splendidly naiive.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 20 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 February, 2012 I was talking about the American government response. They dont have to condone, condemn OR actively support. They can just saying nothing and let Bibi and Co. get on with it. Whether you like it or not, Alps - after all the support that the US has thrown Israel's way over the years, even the course you suggest (which, btw, I think is the right one) will be considered tacit approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 20 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 February, 2012 Right, so you are willing to give China "the benefit of the doubt" because in YOUR opinion their length of crimes is less than the Americans. Rightyho, how splendidly naiive.... I really do enjoy debating with you. However, things will go a lot smoother if you comment on the things I've said, not the things you imagine I might be thinking. Not being funny Alps, but I'm hardly sparing on ye olde word count. If something is unclear, at least do me the honour of seeking clarification rather than adding bits of your own. Alternatively, you can just read what I've written ( although I fear for your post count if you're going to start reading what people say before commenting ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 more and more likely IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 28 February, 2012 more and more likely IMO Agreed. Lots of saber-rattling of late. Do you think "US-led" or "Israel-led" is more likely? Israel seem to be keener, but I'm not sure they can do it unilaterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 more and more likely IMO It has been that way (as I said before) for years. And Pap, it cannot be US Led, not least because they have "close relationships" with the Gulf States. US Led instantly puts those nations with US / UN forces/bases at risk, so it must the the "Evil Empire" and then the US simply moves in "assets" to help keep it's friends safe (and the Global Economy's oil supply of course) And of course the Iranians will simply pop a Silkworm off as they sail through the Straights of Hormuz and that will be that. The thread got sidetracked looking at the merits and alternate solutions to the problem, but the Realpolitik has not changed, just keeps ramping upwards. Saw some stuff on the Beeb news while in the UK last week that made it sound like they almost expected it to have kicked off in the past 7 days or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Saw some stuff on the Beeb news while in the UK last week that made it sound like they almost expected it to have kicked off in the past 7 days or so plans may or may not be in place.......who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 28 February, 2012 And Pap, it cannot be US Led, not least because they have "close relationships" with the Gulf States. US Led instantly puts those nations with US / UN forces/bases at risk, so it must the the "Evil Empire" and then the US simply moves in "assets" to help keep it's friends safe (and the Global Economy's oil supply of course) And of course the Iranians will simply pop a Silkworm off as they sail through the Straights of Hormuz and that will be that. The thread got sidetracked looking at the merits and alternate solutions to the problem, but the Realpolitik has not changed, just keeps ramping upwards. Saw some stuff on the Beeb news while in the UK last week that made it sound like they almost expected it to have kicked off in the past 7 days or so Phil, while I would normally defer to your knowledge in this part of the world ( and may still do here ), it's worth pointing out that the surrounding states have plenty of reasons to want Iran, or at least the current regime, out of the picture. Let's not forget that the regime swept to power in an Islamic Revolution, and that Khomenei was actively trying to spread the Revolution to other states in the late '70s / early '80s. That's one of the reasons that Saddam felt the need to invade. That said, I think you're probably right. It can't be US-led in the sense that the US is seen to cast the first stone. I would imagine that any conflict would be preceded by a hostile "Iranian" action, in much the same way as the Vietnam War started. One thing's for sure - the conditions for that sort of international mishap look 'better' by the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Agreed. Lots of saber-rattling of late. Do you think "US-led" or "Israel-led" is more likely? Israel seem to be keener, but I'm not sure they can do it unilaterally. But have you read the Stratfor emails pap? Interesting that they claim that the Israelis' actions to hobble the nuclear programme have been so successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 28 February, 2012 But have you read the Stratfor emails pap? Interesting that they claim that the Israelis' actions to hobble the nuclear programme have been so successful. Not until you just mentioned them. Some links here, if anyone else is interested:- Haaretz Raw Story If these reports are true, then it would indicate a conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If these reports are true, then it would indicate a conspiracy Bugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Phil, while I would normally defer to your knowledge in this part of the world ( and may still do here ), it's worth pointing out that the surrounding states have plenty of reasons to want Iran, or at least the current regime, out of the picture. Let's not forget that the regime swept to power in an Islamic Revolution, and that Khomenei was actively trying to spread the Revolution to other states in the late '70s / early '80s. That's one of the reasons that Saddam felt the need to invade. That said, I think you're probably right. It can't be US-led in the sense that the US is seen to cast the first stone. I would imagine that any conflict would be preceded by a hostile "Iranian" action, in much the same way as the Vietnam War started. One thing's for sure - the conditions for that sort of international mishap look 'better' by the day. You understood me from your last sentence. My point was the GCC states HAVE to be seen to be neutral (while underneath they really really really want them gone) Ancient Chinese Proverb or something. When standing in front of fecking big nasty nasty guy with a gun pointed at your head, do NOT spit in his face and call his mother a wh0re As in OF COURSE they want them gone. but they sure as hell don't SAY that, and sure don't do any of the Sabre Rattling to give any excuse to get a pot shot fired in their direction. They stick to the "Moan to the UN" route. So, strangely, in Realpolitik world they would like nothing more than for Israel to take action, get the Yanks involved by accident change the regime yadda yadda - AS LONG AS they can bury their heads in the sand.... and don't get Scuds dropping on their heads (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 I noticed this rather late, but it's heartening to see that the Liebherrs have withdrawn all their business from Iran after the 'authorities' started routinely to use heavy-duty cranes in the mass hangings of its citizens, including children. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/idUS221761+24-Aug-2011+BW20110824 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Looks like the US are burning up a lot of political goodwill to get these sanctions in place. 'Iran' is a weapon of subordination The United States has taken steps to pressure its allies outside Europe to move away from imports of Iranian oil. US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland specifically mentioned India and China when saying on February 21 that her government was "having talks with countries around the world about the implications of the [sanctions/embargo] legislation with regard to our expectation that countries will increasingly wean themselves of dependence on Iranian oil." Asked about an opinion piece from former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who wrote that India's decision to continue trade with Iran "isn't just a slap in the face for the US - it raises questions about its ability to lead", Nuland brushed Burns off as "a private citizen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 March, 2012 Share Posted 4 March, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17251279 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 March, 2012 Share Posted 5 March, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17251279 Mr Peres described Iran as "an evil, cruel and morally corrupt regime bent on controlling the Middle East". Weird, I'd say that description fits Israel better. Edited 6 March, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 March, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 March, 2012 Netanyahu on Iran : "We can't afford to wait much longer" Interesting article. The Israelis apparently wanted to get the US to commit to military action if a number of "red lines" were crossed in the development of its nuclear program. The present dynamic between the US and Israel is very interesting. Netanyahu clearly doesn't like Obama, and has dressed him down in public. Obama has said three times in the last week that the "US will always have Israel's back", yet they have politely refused to be tied to any "red line" justification for a pre-emptive strike. Seems a bit weird that Obama is proclaiming very loudly that the US will have Israel's back when they've trampled on his peace plans and dissed him in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 March, 2012 Share Posted 6 March, 2012 Netanyahu on Iran : "We can't afford to wait much longer" Interesting article. The Israelis apparently wanted to get the US to commit to military action if a number of "red lines" were crossed in the development of its nuclear program. The present dynamic between the US and Israel is very interesting. Netanyahu clearly doesn't like Obama, and has dressed him down in public. Obama has said three times in the last week that the "US will always have Israel's back", yet they have politely refused to be tied to any "red line" justification for a pre-emptive strike. Seems a bit weird that Obama is proclaiming very loudly that the US will have Israel's back when they've trampled on his peace plans and dissed him in public. And Obama responds to this 'dressing down' - along with Britain, Germany and France - by re-opening talks with Iran over the nuclear facilities. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/06/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 6 March, 2012 Share Posted 6 March, 2012 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 March, 2012 Share Posted 6 March, 2012 well, obama may not be president much longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 March, 2012 Share Posted 6 March, 2012 well, obama may not be president much longerHuh? The current Republicans candidates are all but unelectable. Unless they ditch Romney and find someone good Obama will be back for a second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 March, 2012 Share Posted 6 March, 2012 well, obama may not be president much longer Obama will win. The economy is on the up, and none of the candidates have broad appeal and the top two have serious weaknesses. Romney flip flops and is too moderate, has no personality and can not attack Obama on healthcare because he introduced almost exactly the same reforms as state governor of Massachusetts. Evangelicals are also wary of his Mormon faith. He also has trouble with his gaffes that make him look like a rich 'let them eat cake type'. Obama doesn't have that problem. Santorum can't appeal to moderates and swing voters because of his harsh social policy, but he does at least have more concentration on social policy which is where this election will be increasingly fought due to the economy improving. But he will not win an election. Too right wing and authoritarian. A lot of the serious republicans like Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee have sat this one out, maybe because they assume it's Obamas? Expect them back next time once Obama's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 March, 2012 Share Posted 10 March, 2012 Agreed. Lots of saber-rattling of late. Do you think "US-led" or "Israel-led" is more likely? Israel seem to be keener, but I'm not sure they can do it unilaterally. Just come back and "They" (The Israelies) as a nation are geared up and ready to strike. They see it very much as "When" not "If" they take action. Almost man for man they told me the same thing. They woulds welcome US support, but if it is not there thery will go it alone. They are preparing for war, simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 March, 2012 Share Posted 10 March, 2012 Just come back and "They" (The Israelies) as a nation are geared up and ready to strike. They see it very much as "When" not "If" they take action. Almost man for man they told me the same thing. They woulds welcome US support, but if it is not there thery will go it alone. They are preparing for war, simple as that. Very much as I feared. Israel feels threatened by Iran, and the Jewish people will never again allow their safety to be entrusted to diplomacy or co-operation that relies on someone elses whim, sense of political expediency, or sense of righteousness. I just hope they have done a proper risk assessment on chances of achieving targets and possible consequences/responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 March, 2012 Share Posted 10 March, 2012 (edited) Very much as I feared. Israel feels threatened by Iran, and the Jewish people will never again allow their safety to be entrusted to diplomacy or co-operation that relies on someone elses whim, sense of political expediency, or sense of righteousness. I just hope they have done a proper risk assessment on chances of achieving targets and possible consequences/responses. As you say they won't allow their safety to be dependent on others. Edited 11 March, 2012 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now