Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
QuoteReplyTopic: Why Iran will lead to World War 3 Posted: 14-Aug-2005 at 21:46
Originally posted by Zagros
Originally posted by Genghis
Originally posted by Zagros
The US needs a counter to give balance to world politics, it would certainly be much worse if the Chinese were a sole superpower, but as a counter they will be productive.
Productive to whom? Not to the United States certainly, and incidents such as the UNOCAL deal show we know realize that fact and are working to put China in their place.
productive for world politics (like I said) when faced with US unilateralism.
U.S. unilateralism is far preferable to the "multilateralism" of, say, the U.N., that debates, debates, debates, and passes impotent and facetious resolutions and "sanctions" such as the "oil for food" B.S. That has been shown to punish innocent populations while benefiting no one but the targets of the sanctions and corrupt U.N. bureaucrats.
Give us critics if this "multilateralism" some credit for being able to see through the smoke screen. The multilateral ideal of a united international community is ephemeral. nothing of substance has come of it in 60 years (perhaps 80 years), and it never will. The U.N. and organizations like it are propaganda mechanisms and nothing more.
What will they debate next.... Zimbabwe's Mugabe? What will they do? A safe bet is nothing. That jackass deserves to be shot by everyone whom he has screwed.
In regard to this subject, I rather favor the "unilateralism" of the Romanian people, and the army who shot Ceaucescu and cleared the air for their future. Multilateralism did them no good, and that piece of trash got exactly what he deserved. What has multilateralism achieved other than to provide employment for a bunch of empty suits in New York who can flaunt parking tickets due to their diplomatic immunity?
I will use this as an example: The US has adopted a first strike policy with nuclear weapons, meaning that if it so pleased it would launch at any country which it feels threatened by, and based on the shadyness of the level of evidence required for the US to feel threatened, that is a very worrying propect. If however there was another real superpower it could say, hey if you do something stupid like that, you'll start a nuke war, such potentially catastrophic policies would be sidelined by the US in that case.
Perhaps Schroeder is not supporting the US, because he needs some support from the German people against the Christian Democrats (possible winners of the next election).
I will use this as an example: The US has adopted a first strike policy with nuclear weapons, meaning that if it so pleased it would launch at any country which it feels threatened by, and based on the shadyness of the level of evidence required for the US to feel threatened, that is a very worrying propect. If however there was another real superpower it could say, hey if you do something stupid like that, you'll start a nuke war, such potentially catastrophic policies would be sidelined by the US in that case.
And why shouldn't we? We've struggled hard to get this much power, I say we use it as we see fit. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, I dare them to try and stop us. Al Qaeda did, and 2/3 of their leadership are dead or rotting away in Cuba.
Don't mention such ideas as "the world community" or "humanity", they exist, but they mean nothing. Would a lion not eat a sheep because they both belong to the "animal community"? Should the US agree to such principles as multilateralism which are propounded only by idealistic fools or the frightened in an attempt to curtail our power? The only diplomatic goal any state should have is to aggrandize itself and impose its will. The world is nothing but a massive jungle, and nations are the beasts, the well behaved ones always get devoured, I would like to see to it that America does not slide into their unenviable position because we wanted to please the sore losers.
I have come to think that all this contemporary pacifism on the part of France and Germany is a resultof the fact that between them they have not won a war in almost a century. They are allieswhen it suits, but watch your back, and if you cannot win any wars, just act superior.
It seems, we can't get it right.
First we get rightly accused of contributing decisively to WW1 and causing WW2, and when we're then learned our lessons and refute military actions as a means for solving international conflicts, we are castigated by Pikeshot1600.
Has it ever occured to you, that these governments might have had genuine reasons to stay out of the predictable disaster that was the attack on the Iraq.
If nothing else, it was "democracy (Something the US Government is allegedly very concerned about), in action", as the vast majority of the population in France and Germany, as indeed of many other countries, were against the invasion, and were proved right to be so.
BTW, the French might not agree with your statement that haven't been on a victorious side in a century, but you can fight that out with them yourself.
I have come to think that all this contemporary pacifism on the part of France and Germany is a result of the fact that between them they have not won a war in almost a century. They are allies when it suits, but watch your back, and if you cannot win any wars, just act superior.
It seems, we can't get it right. First we get rightly accused of contributing decisively to WW1 and causing WW2, and when we're then learned our lessons and refute military actions as a means for solving international conflicts, we are castigated by Pikeshot1600. Has it ever occured to you, that these governments might have had genuine reasons to stay out of the predictable disaster that was the attack on the Iraq. If nothing else, it was "democracy (Something the US Government is allegedly very concerned about), in action", as the vast majority of the population in France and Germany, as indeed of many other countries, were against the invasion, and were proved right to be so.
BTW, the French might not agree with your statement that haven't been on a victorious side in a century, but you can fight that out with them yourself.
Komnenos:
As it isn't over yet, nothing has been "proved." And in fairness, in re the French, I said almost a century, and referred to winning a war, not being "on a victorious side"....there is a difference.
Some international conflicts (as a German, I know you are aware of this) can only be solved by military actions.
Also, I never said the French are not good soldiers. The paras, the Foreign Legion, and others have shown that they are. Currently, they have excellent weaponry and equipment....tanks and aircraft...and pilots who are well trained and very daring as shown in the 1990/91 Gulf War; all very professional.
Their leadership is just slimy. It is the "je suis superieur" attitude that annoys the hell out of me (and others).
While I am on a rant, I saw in the New York Times a comment by a Frenchman that went something like "It would be impossible to have someone in French politics like this Bush person."
Interesting. Who is that Action Francaise type fascist over there?
I guess George W. is no saint, but, unlike the Vichy government, he has not conspired with Nazis to deport Jewish citizens to death camps.
The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved
Dan Plesch Monday August 15, 2005 The Guardian
President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands.
In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.
A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.
America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure.
A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices.
Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.
Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.
The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".
Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.
It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.
New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation.
As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.
We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack.
Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival an@danplesch.net">dan@danplesch.net
Nice article, seems being a American is going to make me more hated from the world over.
The only thing I see that makes sense in this article for the US to attack Iran is the oil to China as that can change alot in the future. Then again I can't see the future so I don't know how China would act as either the Second world power or the only world power. But thats definitly not a reason to cause another war, especially when there can be alot of diplomatic options that can be taken that other nations can agree with.
It says we don't have enough troops to go into another war, but the government wants to pull out all our troops as sson as possible it seems. Makes me wonder why with this article, and if it is to support another war it'd be wrong to do. All those soldiers will be thinking that they are going home to finally see their family only to be sent back out, these people will have no will to fight. And if thats not the case, then sending all our troops back will bring back recruitment because people will think the wars are over and are more likely to enlist when its not during a war so the government still gets more bodies to send over there for their personal war. Reading that article makes me think the government is trying to give us Americans high hopes saying things are getting better and the troops will be home within the year, then having a high possibility we'll be right back in the Middle East fighting another war.
Thats not fact, but it does seem plausible with the way the government keeps saying about the troops returning. I think there should be a law made, in order for you to become President you have to serve in a war as a leader who has to be on the front lines, the Romans did it, and George Washington faught in wars, why not take that tradition as well. This way idiots like Bush can see the reality, he had a chance to goto war but got his father to get him out of it, obviously he can't take war seriuosly and its a reason that makes his campaigns even more dangerous as current events show us now...
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum