Read this. It's quite scary and VERY plausible.
Dates
· UTC
The real reason behind all this gubbins with Iran?
Archived145 replies · 1,872 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Happy birthday, man!
Oh, yeah. P.S. Is it just me, or do socialists/communists never seem happy with anything the United States does?
It's almost as if they're desperate for democracy to fail.
Ermmm thanks Gnu Odor. I'm just in pre-production on 'Smokey and the Bandit: The Early Years'. It's a prequel.
And yip, Gnu Odor, I was uncomfortable with quoting from a socialist site thingy, but the content was more readable than the other ones. It was in a two-page spread in 'The Times' recently, which is far from socialist, but unfortunately I couldn't find the link on the net.
Ignore the headers and just read the content!
These people that write this crap dream up this stuff while watching CNN on their couch stuffing their faces with potato chips.
These people have not BEEN to the middle east. The biggest misconception is when people put themselves in the Iraqis shoes, thinking "well if I was an Iraqi this is how I would react". I worked with 30 Iraqis in Ramadi on a daily basis for 9 months, so close they were like family while I was out there. . .and I still have a hard time understanding their decision-making process.
Want to know more truths about Iraq, ask me, I'll be glad to answer. I've been there, I've seen more than most, and my answers are based on firsthand knowledge, not lazy-boy concepts.
JHC
Bush PAH, so Americans can have Nukes but no one else can - Now that's the democracy they talk about.
well of course the americans aint going to be too pleased about a country that has declared america as its sworn enemy and servant of the devil,getting its hands on a nuke. just another lazy jurno piece that hasnt shed any light on a single thing. and is it too far of a leap to think that these people(irainian gov)wouldnt slip one to one of their mates??? muslims seem to need very little these days to get themselves smacking their foreheads and screaming in outrage and it takes only a bit more to get them in kill mode. so yeah if i was in the american gov id be doing everything in my power to stop them getting what is a very terrible weapon indeed. that same rag would probally berate bush if a nuke was let off in the states,saying "why didnt he do more","he must have known"ect you all know the drill. socialists? what a joke.
Hmmmm... seems like some of you didnt read the article or get the point.
In a nutshell, it's about various countries changing their trading systems in oil, from the petro-dollar to the Euro, and the catastrophic effect this could have on the US economy. Saddam started doing this from the late nineties (as an aside).
Since this article was written, China and Russia are doing half their oil trade in Euro's, Venezuela (the 4th largest oil exporter) has switched completely, and Iran has set a new date of March 20 this year for doing the same.
Now get back to the point!
Didn't miss the meaning of the article. But as alot of articles, it states that the US's real reason for Iraq is oil, and everything else is a sham. There is alot more to Iraq than oil, that is not to say oil has nothing to do with the war, but that it is the sole purpose for us being there is bogus. There is also alot more to Iran than oil as well. N. Korea was called an "axis of evil" by Bush as well, and that has something to do with oil as well? Of course not.
The thing is people want conspericy theories, it makes them feel like victims "in the know". It's a way for people to feel clever, that they understand the real motives while all the other "idiots" are following the a sham.
To understand why Iran is dangerous is to understand the Middle East cultures. The people do not understand what it is to have a "future". I went through this with the Iraqis I worked with. I ask them what they want for their future and their answers were "a beer", "some food", "sex". In all my time their they could not grasp building for thier future. Everything is decided for them. Emums (their priests and clan leader) decide how they feel on issues. What ever their Emum says, they follow. What I foundis that the Emums are very curropt. Their opinions are based on the highest bidder, or how they can attain more power, even if it put the people they lead in danger. Also the middle East does not know how to drop grudges. Grudges over there are horrible, everyone will keep them for generations, to the piont where they hate someone with every ounce of their being but they can't explain why. Anyone who thinks our systems of government are corrupt, need to travel there. Religon, government, oil, and money are so intertwined over there that it's a mess.
Trust me when I say, Iran is dangerous, and not because it is going over to the Euro. But yet we are in politically correct world where you can't call a duck, a duck.
JHC
So you're saying we should attack any country we think might be potentially dangerous, or not think the same way we do?
I'm struggling to see how 'the mentality of people in Iraq' has anything to do with this thread.
There's two BIG lists of dangerous countries.
The one on the left is countries without oil reserves.
The one on the right is countries with oil reserves using the Euro as a dealing currency or planning to in the near future.
Looks like we are going down the one on the right, first.
Well oil does have something to do with it. When you bring up the two counties of threats I assume Iran and N. Korea, there is a BIG difference. N. Korea has China behind it, and that would be UGLY. Plus the N. Koreans are brainwashed unbelivably to anything Kim wants them to do, add China in the mix and that would be a bloody war, and what would we gain for our loss? Bad relations with China?
My link to the people of Iraq is that Iran is not much different, most of the Middle East uses the same structure. Now that Iraq is in turmoil, and a possible American Ally if the government gets off the ground, now is the time for Iran to attack. The Iran/Iraq war was ugly. Iranwants revenge, and it also believes it should control Iraq. So how does this matter for us? If it took over Iraq, it would control a good amount of the world's oil. with oil comes money, and Iran wants control of the Middle East. Iran has already had many ties with terrorist attacks since the 80's, put more money in their hands and things get uglier for Western countries. And this thought that it's about the US, well just look at this whole thing over the cartoons lately. They are attacking Holland!!! What possible threat do they pose???? The thing is everyone is under the belief that we can live peacefully if we leave the Middle East alone. But the Middle East doesn't want to live peacefully, they want blood and lots of it. . .and worse off most of the population there doesn't really know why!!!
Unlike what the article says, Iran won't be a match for the military just as Iraq wasn't (Iraq was the number three military power when they were attacked, behind the US and China). Occupying three countries would be quite burdening and doubt it's going to happen.
JHC
Ok, so we're gonna take out Iran cos it might take out Iraq?...
Wow.. who's the next fish that might swallow them both, cos we might have to take them out after Iran.
I'm not concerned about Muslim mentalities etc. I was hoping someone would come on and explain the impact of taking dollars out of circulation in terms of oil transactions worldwide. The way I see it, that's gonna be a HUGE amount of money, and that money won't be returned in terms of spending on US products/services etc, it will be spent in the European community, and make the Euro by far the biggest trading currency in the world. However way I look at it, that's going to severely dent the US economy, unless something drastic is done about it.
Now can we get back to the topic?
And really, I can't believe the thing about Iraq being the third biggest military power
That has to be some sort of CNN spin, or perhaps they counted in the 'weapons of mass destruction' that um are still to be accounted for.
What about Russia, Japan, France, UK, Israel, North Korea to name just a few?
But the Middle East doesn't want to live peacefully, they want blood and lots of it. . .and worse off most of the population there doesn't really know why!!!
I see you really believe what you see on TV
To address that economic angle in the "article", (as someone who has a fair bit of a background in economics and commodity trading), the benefit to the US of trading in US dollars for energy is vastly overstated, and a new bourse wouldn't do much to affect the American economy even if it were trading in euros - in fact, if the euro depreciates against the dollar then, it stands to benefit the US, by lowering its cost of energy. Also, if Iran breaks out its oil seperate from the commodity exchanges of London and NY, then it has to sell in a much more volatile (price-wise) market with fewer buyers, or enter long-term contracts directly with oil buying nations, like China or India, which then brings it own complications. Plus, Iran would be much more easily manipulated in the market (i.e. boycotted) - they cannot sell their oil through seller's brokers and hide the fact they are selling into a market if they were on their own. The real reason the dollar is so supreme in international trade is the fact that people want to own American dollars (and dollar-denominated instruments like US Treasury bonds)- it is the safest and most liquid investment you can make. The dependence on oil hasn't been a boon to American economic strength but a drag, and has kept the dollar weaker than it would be otherwise. Whoever wrote the article is engaging in very wishful thinking - but I think history has proved socialists know very little about economics. I think they should be much more worried about a cabal of muslim extremists having the nuclear bomb. I know I am. Now, on to the three worst bands thread....
Ahhh.. at last. A reasoned answer from a person with some grasp of economics.
Fair points, I guess, but two things i might add:
This isn't just an Iran thing; the current tide is to switch, it appears. The month that China switched half of its oil-buying to Euros coincided with a 19% drop in the US monthly economic figures.
Obviously, world oil reserves are depleting, with a best estimate of 50 years left. Imagine the economic power of being in control of those oil reserves in the last stages of depletion, over a Western world full of oil-dependent nations.
68 Pontiac wrote:
And this thought that it's about the US, well just look at this whole thing over the cartoons lately. They are attacking Holland!!! What possible threat do they pose????
Its actually Denmark. I think there is an anti-bacon thing going on there too.
Shakin' Baker wrote: Also, if Iran breaks out its oil seperate from the commodity exchanges of London and NY, then it has to sell in a much more volatile (price-wise) market with fewer buyers, or enter long-term contracts directly with oil buying nations, like China or India, which then brings it own complications. Plus, Iran would be much more easily manipulated in the market (i.e. boycotted)
Surely its only a change in currency?.. Are you trying to say the London and NY can't trade in euros?. Besides, why would any oil buying nations boycott them for trading in Euros?.. Venezuela don't seem to have a problem.
"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote: For all the innocent people the Americans have killed , I shed a tear
I hope you got a bumper box of tissues from Tescos, Mike.
Ummm, I believe what I see on TV???
I'm talking from actual firsthand knowledge, not what the tv says. Actually the TV is so full of it on our progress in Iraq. We are alot further ahead than journelists would lead us to believe.
Like I said in my first post, after 9 months of being as close as family to many Iraqis, I still have a very difficult time understanding their decision making. The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Ummm, I believe what I see on TV???
I'm talking from actual firsthand knowledge, not what the tv says. Actually the TV is so full of it on our progress in Iraq. We are alot further ahead than journelists would lead us to believe.
Like I said in my first post, after 9 months of being as close as family to many Iraqis, I still have a very difficult time understanding their decision making. The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there.
JHC
Still missing the point I see, Pontiac.
OK, fuck it.. Let's bomb them all
"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote: Bush PAH, so Americans can have Nukes but no one else can - Now that's the democracy they talk about.
Get right on that list of countries you'd like to have nukes. Iran apparently.
And, no, I've decided I'm not ignoring the source of the original link.
I do wish all the socialists/Marxists/communists would at the least be more open about their sponsorships of these things.
Some chick from "World Can't Wait" was interviewed on the radio the other day. "So, you want Bush and Cheney to step down. Does that mean you want the Speaker of the House to be president?" "No. We have different opinions on that. I don't want there to be a president." See, she's only 20 or so, but has been a communist for two years and thinks China under Mao was the bee's knees. Heaven on earth.
Same shit with their local rally here. Hammer and Sickle badges everywhere. Another radio interview with another pot-banger. "What kind of government do you want?" "We don't think there should be a government."
Same shit with all these protests by International ANSWER, which is just a really thin veneer on the Workers World Party. Check all the WHOIS records on every single one of these goddamn "peace" movements.
World Socialist Movement? Um, no thanks. Me and my vote and my freedom of speech and my .44 Ruger say no fucking way.
i can't be arsed looking up the article. but from what you have said, i think i have heard this theory before.
- the usa is running up huge budget deficits.
- it is in part financed by oversees demand for the us dollar.
- demand for us dollar falls.
- the value of the us dollar falls
- the usa has huge problems in financing its budget.
- taxes and interest rates would have to rise dramaticly in the usa, causing a major recession.
have i got it right?
unfortunatly if this were to come to pass the whole world economy would be stuffed (in recession), as the usa is still the largest economy, and importer of goods.
I 
you, 68 Pontiac.
I'm off to bed, but first a mighty American fuck you to Diggy Mike.
Seriously.
Your claim to shed tears for a select subset of innocents says all I need to hear.
Gnu Odor wrote: [And, no, I've decided I'm not ignoring the source of the original link.
I do wish all the socialists/Marxists/communists would at the least be more open about their sponsorships of these things.
OK here's another less digestible non-Socialist link for you. As I said I'd thought I'd go for the one that is easier to read. Shame some couldn't even manage that, or read past the source!
http://politicalphysics.com/node/1333
I'm sure I can find a right wing one if you want. There's 380,000 hits on google, to choose from.
I was saying (or I suppose I meant to say) that if Iran did go on its own and try to sell its own oil directly, rather than thru NY or London markets, if people (or the US, which buys half of the oil traded in the world) wanted to boycott Iran, it'd be a lot easier than it is now, and the hurt would hit Iran more. With Iran part of OPEC and trading through the established exchanges right now, if the US wanted to formally boycott Iran, OPEC might get miffed and boycott us in return, whereas if Iran sold it themselves, the US simply could avoid buying from Iran without ever formally making an annnouncement. I don't mean to write a treatise, but to simply state the writers of the article just don't get how things work - there's a lot more to the US economy than oil, and a lot more factors at work with the dollar -- someone earlier said that if the US goes to hell, the rest of the world does too, and that's pretty much true - Americans buy a whole lot of stuff, finance a whole lot of stuff and invent a whole lot of stuff (like the Internet, for instance), so places like China have a huge self-interest in making sure the dollar doesn't take a dive. In the grander scheme of things, I can't deny that it would be less beneficial for the US ultimately if the world changed to euros as the common currency of international trade, but not catastrophic, just as it hasn't been catastrophic for Europe the past few decades with the dollar being the main currency of trade. But I don't see it happening - even with us living in bizarro land here the past 6 years with the doofuses in power like Bush and Cheney, the US economy has still outpaced Europe's this decade.
But why would the trading situation change?.. Only the currency would change. Iran would trade through OPEC just as other Euro trading countries do. I can't see a need or a justification for a boycott.
Unless, perhaps, a UN resolution imposes sanctions on them, (i.e. just before they switch to the Euro), or an invading force stops them switching, then I can't see switching as being in anyway non-beneficial.
As I said, March 20 is the proposed switching date, and guess what, they are being voted on by the UN Security Council as we speak. Coincidence, perhaps?!
Well Diggity Dawg.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Ummm, I believe what I see on TV???
I'm talking from actual firsthand knowledge, not what the tv says. Actually the TV is so full of it on our progress in Iraq. We are alot further ahead than journelists would lead us to believe.
Like I said in my first post, after 9 months of being as close as family to many Iraqis, I still have a very difficult time understanding their decision making. The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there.
JHC
Still missing the point I see, Pontiac.
OK, fuck it.. Let's bomb them all
The point is you trying to bring on a debate on how Middle East interests are solely brought on by world economics. This is NOT the main threat that Iran poses. I guess it's easier to imagine our govt. is messed up, so we can actually do something about it. The fear that vast amount of people live unlike us is disturbing and not something we can easily fix.
You want this discussion to go in YOUR direction, however the points I am bringing up are the real threats that the Middle East possesses.
Instead of getting all your info off of Google, how about going down there yourself and see for yourself what the issues are, since you won't believe me. You'll be enlightened a little bit.
JHC
Nothing is wrong with countries or peoples having different points of view. That is assuming that it is a peaceful point of view.
That you have known a few Iraqis, I'm not grasping your point, where? In your hometown?
Let me make this a little more simple. The Emums (priests and community leaders), they are the brains, thought process, and political stance for all those in their communities; and they are terribly corrupt. Everyone blindly follows their Emum. If one says "hate Denmark and burn down thier embassy", there are no questions, they follow it. There is NO individual thought process. Also they don't care for life, human or animal. That is against all ideals that all of us have grown up around.
It is not about religon or finances, it is about old grudges and power. Simple.
The point is not to carpet bomb them all (though it would be a quick solution), the solution is to teach them to think for themselves, but that takes a couple generations to grasp.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
The fear that vast amount of people live unlike us is disturbing and not something we can easily fix.
JHC
This, and the quote, "The average Westerner wants to live in peace, not all cultures live that way. . .which is the major disconnect that makes the Middle East difficult to understand. We see EVERY life as important, but the Middle East societies do not veiw their own lives as we do. They live moment to moment, not looking towards their future.
Difficult and far fetched? I agree, but this is our issue over there"
are really disturbing.
Are we to assume that you are happy for the US to bomb every culture that doesn't follow your beliefs and ideals for living as potential targets.
If so, much of Europe could be on the list.
I've met many Iraqis and some Afghans too. They were impressively nationalistic in general, and friendly, mostly. I'm sure their depth of conversation is vastly improved when you meet them in another country (in this case, the UK), without occupying forces patrolling with guns nearby.
68 Pontiac wrote:
It is not about religon or finances, it is about old grudges and power. Simple.
The point is not to carpet bomb them all (though it would be a quick solution), the solution is to teach them to think for themselves, but that takes a couple generations to grasp.
JHC
Jesus, thats seriously fucked up. Particularly the (though it would be a quick solution) bit.
See the above to reply to most of your last post.
As for the Iraqis you have met, in what class were they? The Middle East has a HUGE gap between those that are rich and poor. . .those that are educated and those that are not. About 90% of the populations are in poverty in most of those countries, while the others are rolling in money, supressing the have-nots.
Ask those same Iraqis how many of their countrymen they trust. The answer will suprise you.
JHC
Burt Reynolds wrote: And really, I can't believe the thing about Iraq being the third biggest military power
How'd they figure that one out?
Not much to quibble with in that article. I read about the PetroEuro market before, in a non-socialist news article, so writing that off as socialist nonsense won't fly.
No quibbles with the geopoitical analysis either.
Now, about Iran's push to acquire nukes, I believe it's a threat, and can't be dismissed by saying it's all about PetroEuros. Of course, I also believed the WMDs were a threat...
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Not much to quibble with in that article. I read about the PetroEuro market before, in a non-socialist news article, so writing that off as socialist nonsense won't fly.
No quibbles with the geopoitical analysis either.
Now, about Iran's push to acquire nukes, I believe it's a threat, and can't be dismissed by saying it's all about PetroEuros. Of course, I also believed the WMDs were a threat...
that is true, but they'd better find some real evidence of wmds this time, if they are indeed producing nuclear weapons. if iran wants a nuclear reactor, who are we to deny them that. many countries have those.
From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
sorry to say pontiac 86 but just because you experienced the frontline does not mean you are an authority on the the war itselt. Maybe on the realities of war but your missing the politics of deceit. Very short sighted of you. Consider the leaders of the war. Neo-cons who never spent a day in war. They rather just play war. Before you say somebody has no right to see deceitful reasons of the war beacause they havent been to the middle east consider who the leaders are.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
Comrade and ronald,
Completely agree with you both.
Ghostrider, Assuming I'm simpleminded and short sighted, well shame on you. There are more reasons for us to be in Iraq than freedom and oil. I am not contesting that, but there is a real threat with the culture of the Middle East, which is what I was refering to. It is the main reason we are there. Everything else is spoils of war.
JHC
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade and ronald,
Made him call me Comrade.
Truce?
Yeah, just be careful on what you say about vets, they are close to my heart as Brothers in arms. I get defensive over those type of issues.
JHC
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how would they get one there though?
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how whould they get one there though?
A suitcase.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: From what I understand, they're pursuing a program that could be EITHER nuclear power OR nuclear weapons. Considering the possibility that Iran would (a) follow through on its call to wipe Israel off the map, or (b) that radical Islamists would get their hands on a nuclear weapon, we can't, and won't, allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
i remember israel once bombing a nuclear reactor. don't you think that if they felt really threatened, they would do the same again?
Guaranteed.
so what are we worried about then?
One going off in New York.
well yes.
just how whould they get one there though?A suitcase.
are we talking about a nuclear bomb here? or one of those dirty bonb devices?
Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
I'm not an expert either. Just going by memory here. Here's a link, and another. However, according to Wikipedia, only an extremely advanced nuclear weapons program, such as the U.S. program, could actually build one.
Then there's this article...
I dunno. 
Now I'm probably going to get a visit from Homeland Security for looking this stuff up... 
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Hmmm... good question. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that if a terrorist could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it could be configured to fit inside a suitcase. Islamic extremists are looking for a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that they could get their hands on one is why we got a little nervous when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and later, why Pakistan had theirs airlifted to the top of some mountain in the Himalayas.
A dirty bomb could be hidden in a suitcase as well, and would certainly cause major problems, but I think our biggest concern is an actual nuclear weapon going off in a major population center like New York City.
I'm not an expert, but i thought a nuclear warhead was actually quite large, whereas on of those dirty bomb devices could probably fit inside a suitcase.
I'm not an expert either. Just going by memory here. Here's a link, and another. However, according to Wikipedia, only an extremely advanced nuclear weapons program, such as the U.S. program, could actually build one.
Then there's this article...
I dunno.
Now I'm probably going to get a visit from Homeland Security for looking this stuff up...
well i just checked all those links too. thanks for that btw. so, it seems a suitcase bomb is possible. the question is what kind of bomb would iran construct, were they to build one. i believe they would go for something, that well they could use as n offensive weapon against its neighbours.
if those articles are to be believed than those suitcase bombs could actually already be in circulation, and in at least that regard it won't matter what iran does.
Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
are you beginning to sound like your mate W? Simple answer really. if you do nasty things to north korea, then north korea will do nasty things to south korea.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
are you beginning to sound like your mate W? Simple answer really. if you do nasty things to north korea, then north korea will do nasty things to south korea.
No, actually I'm questioning why W hasn't done anything. But I suppose you're right, and actually, they'd probably do nasty things to Japan as well.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
Jumping back to the petrodollar theory, I cannot see an economic benefit in taking on North Korea, let alone the potential casualties we could have.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yeah, who knows what's out there. Still, I don't think we're going to take a chance with Iran building more. Here's an interesting question, though: Why haven't we done more to stop North Korea? Surely they could use the cash terrorists would be willing to pay for nuclear weapons?
Jumping back to the petrodollar theory, I cannot see an economic benefit in taking on North Korea, let alone the potential casualties we could have.
Well, other than the petro dollar thing, agree with you. As long as NK stays in thier little hole, I don't see us taking out Kim.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade and ronald,
Completely agree with you both.
Ghostrider, Assuming I'm simpleminded and short sighted, well shame on you. There are more reasons for us to be in Iraq than freedom and oil. I am not contesting that, but there is a real threat with the culture of the Middle East, which is what I was refering to. It is the main reason we are there. Everything else is spoils of war.
JHC
it does seem to me that there has been added instabilty and even more extreme anti-western attitudes since the farce of iraq. Do you merely chalk this up to concidence? Iran has been able to continue with their nuclear program because The Us has their hands behind their backs with iraq.
I understand your thoughts on this. The antiwestern sediment has been around alot longer, though. The main issue the Middle East has on the US is the backing of Isreal.
As for Iraqi sediment, that has alot to do with how the Press portrays things. 80-90% of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not Iraqis. Most are Syrians and Jordanians. The Iraqi people have been supressed for so long they don't know how to stand up for themselves. They actually understand the US's reasoning for being present, and hate the insurgents that keep pouring into thier country. The Press, however, portrays that the instability in Iraq is Iraqis that are unhappy with our presence. This could not be further from the truth. Also another thingthe Press portrays is that the entire country in in turmoil. This is false as well. The problem area is in the "Sunni Triangle" which includes Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Hit, and other small towns. This area is aprox 70 miles wide by 60 miles high (I'm basing this right now off the times it took to drive from one end to the other, so it is an approximation). The areas outside the Triangle are actually quite stable.
I don't think anti-Western sediment has grown all that much (though I'm sure it hasn't helped), but I do think it is in the news alot more so makes it seem that way. Hope this helps.
JHC
Noticed I didn't answer on a good portion of your question. One thing that people seem to forget is that Saddam had given every impression that he had WMD, and that he had been fighting/playing with the UN inspectors for 10 years. During this time Iran was still having the debate of Nuclelar power. The so you have Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan all being indivual problems. There are no bases near these areas, so having a forward base to stage an assualt (other than Kuwait) if nessissary would be extremely difficult. At the time all these "problem" countries were seperate, but if they unified, it could be a real problem. By invading Iraq and Afganistan, Iran is now sandwiched between two occupied countries. If a major assualt is needed, there are enough bases to do so. To do so of course would stretch us thin, however we are in a better position geograhically to make an assualt. Are we worse off?? Well can't say we are, but can't say we aren't. Kind of a stalemate on that.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
As for Iraqi sediment, that has alot to do with how the Press portrays things. 80-90% of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not Iraqis. Most are Syrians and Jordanians. The Iraqi people have been supressed for so long they don't know how to stand up for themselves. They actually understand the US's reasoning for being present, and hate the insurgents that keep pouring into thier country.
JHC
Is this from the same sources that told you Iraq is the third biggest military power in the World, Pontiac?
I still can't buy your theory that we are there because we differ in attitudes to life, and are just 're-educating' them. Besides, the thread is about Iran.
And another thing, Pontiac. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that some of the things you've been told or heard, as part of the military, or from military contacts, might be attempts to keep troop morale high?
I.e keep them focussed on the job despite all the nagging doubts as to why they are there.
BTW, that Sunni triangle is pretty huge in terms of population, as you said it includes small towns like Baghdad.
Ummm. . . never said Baghdad was small???
As for the percentage, it's pretty well known, not only by military, but by Iraqis as well. The insurgents came INTO towns, they were not residents. This is the issue with the Iraqi border and the problems we are having with it. It is the whole reasoning behind the Fallujah campaign. You can tell the difference between Iraqis and Syrians or Jordanians, there are different facial features and the dialect is slightly different.
Unlike what you may think most of our information does NOT come from military intel, it has to be found by the unit while it conducts it's patrols. That you consider us "brainwashed" is ignorant. I'm not backing any political base with my information. This isn't info from some website, pamphlet, or other resource; it is from eyes on experience. . .also assuming that I was a mere private with a gun with big wonderous eyes is also jumping to conclusions, isn't it?
How about this, ask someone else that was there, I have no doubts they will tell you the same. Or do you guys believe everything that CNN tells you?
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
That you consider us "brainwashed" is ignorant. I'm not backing any political base with my information. This isn't info from some website, pamphlet, or other resource; it is from eyes on experience. . .also assuming that I was a mere private with a gun with big wonderous eyes is also jumping to conclusions, isn't it?
How about this, ask someone else that was there, I have no doubts they will tell you the same. Or do you guys believe everything that CNN tells you?
JHC
All I know, is that I wouldn't be there in the first place on moral grounds, thats why I wouldn't consider a career in the forces. I get my information from Reuters and various independent sources, not CNN. Don't forget in the UK we get arguably the most unbiassed news service available in the Western World.
I didn't assume you are a private with a gun with big wondrous eyes (although I don't understand what eye size has to do with it)
I'm also a little sick and very tired of this 'I was there' stance you keep adopting, which has so far churned out:
i) We are invading Iraq and all other countries around it cos we don't like their mentality and attitude to building for the future, and so we are 'educating' them.
ii) Iraq is the third biggest military power in the world.
iii) And the latest, 90% of trouble is caused by a vast influx of insurgents from other countries.
Once again.. This thread was about Iran, not an excuse for you to vent your Iraqi campaign experiences and views. If you need to do that, find an appropriate vets website or try one of the many post-traumatic conflict counsellors available.
finally.. sediment is an accumulation if silt. I hope you understand this sentiment.
Burt Reynolds wrote: sediment is an accumulation if silt. I hope you understand this sentiment.
Well you claim the liberal media 'bias',is why we may have these distorted views.Maybe you think the armiy's view may be bias?
I have no doubt that grudges are a part of mideast culture. Also no doubt that tribal leaders exercise their influence.
The thought that W went to war for that reason is not only ludicrous, it's not even supported by even one of the multiple excuses he's offered to justify the war.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I have no doubt that grudges are a part of mideast culture. Also no doubt that tribal leaders exercise their influence.
The thought that W went to war for that reason is not only ludicrous, it's not even supported by even one of the multiple excuses he's offered to justify the war.
lemme see if remember the right sequence. first it was WMDS, then it was that iraq supported terrorism. as far as i know neither of those two reasons have yet been substantiated. lastly it is, that the world is a better place without sadam hussain in power. if that is a good enough reason, then i can think of quite a few leaders without whom the world would be a better place.
This has become pointless. There are no unbiased news networks: they are all syndicated, meaning only one reporter in the area and it is up to what they report; which is what the world news networks say. Things I have said are being used out of context and has become clear this is not about learning the truth of things, but to confirm what you already "know".
I take back everything. I don't know shit. The things I saw with my own eyes where apparitions caused by "the military trying to make me happy". Google articles are alot more reliable. Oh yeah, and we want to invade Iran because their switching over to the Euro.
Happy?
JHC
Spot on, Pontiac. Glad you're seeing reason.
Difficult to understand how the uncensored internet could provide a more accurate image than the one you get running around with a gun, but I'm glad to see you are turning over a new leaf.
I'd email W with your theory cos he needs a new one.
68 Pontiac wrote: I think it's called sarcasim, but I'll leave well enough alone.
JHC
sarcasm actually..
'scuse me, i have to wipe the sediment build up on my keyboard
68 Pontiac wrote: Things I have said are being used out of context
My mistake, I assumed you meant our rationale for being in Iraq is to train them how to think for themselves. At least I think I misunderstood you... 
Ronald Kirsch wrote: glad to see that pontiac and burt have finally made up.
wasn't this thread about iran?
We did?..
I thought he just gave up with his theory in a whirlwind of hard sarcasm from me. Not sure about making up. I'm looking forward to his contributions to debates in the future..LOL
Yeah.. it was about Iran.. lol.. wanna start it again??
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Things I have said are being used out of context
My mistake, I assumed you meant our rationale for being in Iraq is to train them how to think for themselves. At least I think I misunderstood you...
Reminds me of the kind of things troops were told when Britain grabbed an Empire by force.
"Get up you snake-charming bastards, we are gonna educate you into making a fine cup of tea"
"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote: 68 Pontiac
Please explain why America is in Iraq !
presumably for the same reason 8000 troops from the UK are there?
So how about that PetroEuro theory, anyway? The real reason behind all this gubbins with Iran?
AgentWood wrote:
"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote: 68 Pontiac
Please explain why America is in Iraq !
presumably for the same reason 8000 troops from the UK are there?
Yip Agent Wood, we dunno why either, but we are mere voters. Perhaps we sent an army of teachers over there to help educate them.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
AgentWood wrote:
"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote: 68 Pontiac
Please explain why America is in Iraq !
presumably for the same reason 8000 troops from the UK are there?
Yip Agent Wood, we dunno why either, but we are mere voters. Perhaps we sent an army of teachers over there to help educate them.
Probably should've been a separate thread, but it's an interesting conceit to argue that our way of decision-making-- Republicanism-- is superior to another culture's way of decision-making-- tribal councils, for example-- and should therefore be imposed upon other cultures. For their own good. Or our own good. Or whatever.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: So how about that PetroEuro theory, anyway? The real reason behind all this gubbins with Iran?
i'm still up for it as a major contributory factor Comrade. It seems to be heading conveniently towards the Iran Euro switch over date of March 20, this year.
I haven't seen anyone argue successfully that if the petrodollar became non-existent the US economy would seriously suffer. The only figures I have to back this up are that when China switched 50% of its buying to Euros, the monthly economy figure for US dipped by 19%. I suspect its not a case of just Iran, but if everyone did it at once, well who knows. The interest in Iran maybe because it has a supply.
i don't see any country seriously going to start imposing sanctions, or even a war just because another country is no longer usuing its currency.
I dare say iran's share of the world economy is so miniscule as to have little actual impact on the value of the us dollar.
Well, I think that would be the worry-- who cares if Iran is trading in PetroEuros, but if the market becomes a viable alternative to the PetroDollar, that must have some economic impact?
I'm not sure that's enough reason to rattle the sabers at Iran. It seems more likely, to me, that the geopolitical analyiss has identified the real issues-- a struggle for control of resources between China and the U.S.
And for the U.S., stability in the resource supply is paramount. That would go further in explaining mideast policy, I think, than the opening of a PetroEuro market.
I wonder what game Iran is playing in all of this, though? I read an interesting analysis in the past year that essentially said that we we're in Iraq because we played Iran's game-- Iran schemed to get us into Iraq as vengeance against Saddam, and to increase their own mideast influence by strengthening the Iraqi Shiite community-- and we played into Iran's game. A very interesting analysis. If that theory's correct, I wonder what game they're playing now?
the USA is still the largest economy. to be able to trade with it, trade will be conducted in $, so there will always be a demand for the US$. I don't think that one country switching from $ to euros, will have much of an impact. If more countries should follow suit, however, then that is a different matter.
Right, I think that would be the real worry-- an alternative trading system. Not just one country doing it, but lots. Maybe some countries trade in petrodollars. Then the U.S. does something, or fails to do something, and they register their anger by changing to petroeuros. That would be a concern for the U.S.-- haing to adjust our foreign policy to please a range of nations for fear of the economic impact of angering them.
I'm saying its just a contributory and valid theory. I can't see anything wrong with it. I suspect it's the domino effect it may have long term that makes it more valid.
I've never been happy with the WMD stuff; but if you put it in with this theory and others it makes sense.
I always believe that our current respective administrations do not do anything so drastic unless there is an economic benefit, capitalists they are.
Hell if it was about human rights we would have toppled Zimbabwe a while back.
It does seem to be a big trend to switch to the Euro too; Venezuela did it recently.
Perhaps its worth explaining that all transactions in oil were done in petrodollars from 1946.
The first person to buck this trend was Saddam, about 1997, of all people. The trend has since gone crazy since the introduction of the Euro.
Burt Reynolds wrote: I always believe that our current respective administrations do not do anything so drastic unless there is an economic benefit, capitalists they are.
A few years back, there was some huge uproar between the U.S. and China over human rights. The U.S. position was that we were not going to back down on human rights, regardless of the economics involved. China's position, stated to the press, was that the U.S. is capitalistic, and economics would take priority over human rights. The U.S. scoffed at this remark. Guess which country was right about the outcome?
if this does indeed happen, and the value of the us dollar drops, and the us economy threatens to go into recession or worse, threatening a world wide economic downturn, as i outlined above. do you really think all those countries that are interested in trading in with the us, and would like their own economies to move along at a reasonable pace, like germany, japan, and even china would allow this happen?
i dare say no. all those central banks would be buying up the us dollar to prop up its vaule, and to ensure that the wheels of international commerce continue to turn.
I dare say you are right Ronald on the US dollar, but as i said it's definitely a contributory factor. I would bet that the Euro is the biggest currency worldwide by 2010, even though I'm stuck with the pound.
There are various estimates to the lifespan of available oil supplies, the most optimistic of which is 50 years, more likely 30 years. It will be more valuable than gold in those final years, so control may be more important than we realise.
China is expected to overtake the US economically in 30 years at the earliest, and in terms of economic policy, they are spot on so far.
OK... does anyone genuinely believe the Iraq rumpus is purely about WMD's?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: What WMDs?
Quite!
The poor buggers are being denied the chance to even make them!
At least no-one is mentioning E-mums..
I thought they were mothers who had learned to use the internet..
Burt Reynolds wrote: At least no-one is mentioning E-mums..
I thought they were mothers who had learned to use the internet..
I thought those mothers were called I-mams?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: At least no-one is mentioning E-mums..
I thought they were mothers who had learned to use the internet..
I thought those mothers were called I-mams?
LOL.. I was, as you know, quoting from a previous poster in here. As a Brit, I can't help continually 'taking the piss', but I'm sure you understand, it's in my nature, almost genetic to do so..*l*
I'm still up for sending out an army of schoolteachers with canes etc. Give them detention for shelling military bases etc.
We could even send some missionaries.
Burt Reynolds wrote: I dare say you are right Ronald on the US dollar, but as i said it's definitely a contributory factor. I would bet that the Euro is the biggest currency worldwide by 2010, even though I'm stuck with the pound.
There are various estimates to the lifespan of available oil supplies, the most optimistic of which is 50 years, more likely 30 years. It will be more valuable than gold in those final years, so control may be more important than we realise.
quote]
a true economist would say, that when something becomes scarce and too expensive, then an alternative is found. so look forwars to cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
quite frankly i have no idea of what the current fuss with iran is about.
is it oil?. iraq has proven that the world economy can live without one of its major suppliers who a considerable time. so let them threaten to stop supplying.
is it wmd? perhaps. but as best we know they don't have anything too nasty. were they to develop some, then no doubt a little airstrike from a little county on the mediterranian would finish that.
is it their shift from the dollar to the euro. probably don't as i pointed out the world economy will adjust and adapt.
all i can pin it down to is those rather inflamitary statements their president likes to make. by implication certain countries can then justify their presence in the region, by pointing out that yes they are stablising the region, and those countries there aren't to be trusted.
that is just my analysis. you don't have to agree with it.
68 Pontiac wrote: Noticed I didn't answer on a good portion of your question. One thing that people seem to forget is that Saddam had given every impression that he had WMD, and that he had been fighting/playing with the UN inspectors for 10 years. During this time Iran was still having the debate of Nuclelar power. The so you have Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan all being indivual problems. There are no bases near these areas, so having a forward base to stage an assualt (other than Kuwait) if nessissary would be extremely difficult. At the time all these "problem" countries were seperate, but if they unified, it could be a real problem. By invading Iraq and Afganistan, Iran is now sandwiched between two occupied countries. If a major assualt is needed, there are enough bases to do so. To do so of course would stretch us thin, however we are in a better position geograhically to make an assualt. Are we worse off?? Well can't say we are, but can't say we aren't. Kind of a stalemate on that.
JHC
I think this post may have been skipped.
To jump in, and to keep with the recent posts, I have a theory on our involvement with all in the MiddleEast.
First, I agree there are financial reasons to be there. But I believe 9/11 has alot to do with this. Can imagine the immediate reactions, but please hear me out.
9/11 blame was squarely with Osama, which was in Afgan. That region however, has alot of anti-western seTiment (mainly due to the US backing of Isreal). To the East of Afgan is a large group of nations bordering each other with issues with the western cultures (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan). If Afgan is invaded and occupied, anti western seTiment will grow, bringing these nations to the East together, which could create a real shitstorm. By invading Iraq, it splits up this group BEFORE it happens.
9/11 changed the President's thoughts on being reactive, but being proactive in the fight for security. Which is what he did say in the begining.
Well?
JHC
Sorry for the misspellings, I don't profreed my typing, so there will be misspellings.
68 Pontiac wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote: Noticed I didn't answer on a good portion of your question. One thing that people seem to forget is that Saddam had given every impression that he had WMD, and that he had been fighting/playing with the UN inspectors for 10 years. During this time Iran was still having the debate of Nuclelar power. The so you have Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan all being indivual problems. There are no bases near these areas, so having a forward base to stage an assualt (other than Kuwait) if nessissary would be extremely difficult. At the time all these "problem" countries were seperate, but if they unified, it could be a real problem. By invading Iraq and Afganistan, Iran is now sandwiched between two occupied countries. If a major assualt is needed, there are enough bases to do so. To do so of course would stretch us thin, however we are in a better position geograhically to make an assualt. Are we worse off?? Well can't say we are, but can't say we aren't. Kind of a stalemate on that.
JHC
I think this post may have been skipped.
To jump in, and to keep with the recent posts, I have a theory on our involvement with all in the MiddleEast.
First, I agree there are financial reasons to be there. But I believe 9/11 has alot to do with this. Can imagine the immediate reactions, but please hear me out.
9/11 blame was squarely with Osama, which was in Afgan. That region however, has alot of anti-western seTiment (mainly due to the US backing of Isreal). To the East of Afgan is a large group of nations bordering each other with issues with the western cultures (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan). If Afgan is invaded and occupied, anti western seTiment will grow, bringing these nations to the East together, which could create a real shitstorm. By invading Iraq, it splits up this group BEFORE it happens.
9/11 changed the President's thoughts on being reactive, but being proactive in the fight for security. Which is what he did say in the begining.
Well?
JHC
Sorry for the misspellings, I don't profreed my typing, so there will be misspellings.
Well, Syria and Jordan are to the west of Afghanistan, but let's call that quibbling and say that your theory still applies.
In the case of Afghanistan, I think the U.S. had little choice but to invade. The only question is whether we should send in special forces to take bin Laden out, or to invade, overthrow the Taliban, and then look for bin Laden.
Now, I read an interesting analysis of 9/11 recently, in the NY Times Magazine, that basically says bin Laden launched 9/11 because he wanted us to invade Afghanistan. The reasoning is that if bin Laden could draw us into Afghanistan, then that would create a lot of turmoil in the Islamic world, with the eventual goal being to drive the U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia. With the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, bin Laden can accomplish his real goal, which is the overthrow of the House of Saud.
Bin Laden succeeded in luring us into Afghanistan, but failed in igniting widespread Islamic opposition to our invasion of Afghanistan. Then Bush did something that played right into bin Laden's hands-- something that bin Laden hadn't planned for, but which nevertheless worked. Bush invaded Iraq-- a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and a nation that was not a refuge for terrorists. The shitstorm bin Laden hoped to stir was stirred. As you mention in your other posts, the mujahedeen pouring into Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia and Jordan-- precisely what bin Laden wants. Disaffected young Saudis being trained as terrorists and mujahedeen.
It isn't the nation-states we have to worry about. Jordan isn't going to line up into the anti-U.S. camp. Syria is already there. Iran is already there. But these nations don't cooperate with each other, and the U.S. presence in Afghanistan isn't going to change that. The people, however, are going to cooperate with each other-- and that is precisely what our invasion of Iraq is causing to happen, and precisely what bin Laden hoped would happen.
I think there's far more evidence to suggest that these factors led to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq:
We're probably at peak oil now, and world oil production will be declining from this point forward.
The mideast still contains sizeable deposits of oil.
China is a rapidly emerging power, perhaps to become a superpower in this century. China needs resources, including oil, to continue its rise.
Stability in the mideast-- meaning governments stable enough, and friendly enough, to continue supplying oil tothe west-- is essential for western economic security.
Saddam's cat-and-mouse games vis-a-vis his military ambitions reached a point where it was less costly, and less destabilizing, to remove him than it would be to continue to play his cat-and-mouse games.
Bush is a vindictive person, and to the extent that his family's interests coincide with U.S. interests, this was a Bush family vendetta.
Iran manipulated the U.S. into invading, to achieve its own ends of removing Saddam. Those ends include vengeance for the Iraq-Iran war, and freeing Iran to wield its influence in Iraq's large Shiite community-- the only Shiite community outside of Iran.
You were right on the compass, don't know what I was thinking.
Agree that oil does have something to do with it, but I think there is more to it.
Though there are country borders, there are also religious borders and national borders that are different. A good example is in N. Iraq the majority of the population Iranian. Palestinians are strewn through out the middleeast (except in Kuwait where all Palestinians were evicted from), so mere country borders don't work in the western sense.
Saddam had been playing with UN inspectors for 10 years, and kicked them out. There was a need to put force behind UN words of "let us in or else!", as Saddam kept asking theoretically "or else what?"
We are pulling our Army base out of Germany, which is at 1/3rd it's strength, and should be completely out by 2014??? Anyways that leaves a vacuum for our forward bases. I believe the intention is to keep a base in Iraq. Anytime there were missle strikes in the Middle East there were high costs to use the neighboring countries airzone. Iraq is right in the middle. There are alot of issues brewing in that area of the world, so to have a forward base in the area only makes sense.
All the Western-haters are crazily heading towards Iraq. This could be a cleansing as it keeps them attacking those in bases, with weapons, versus flying abroad and crashing into tall skyscrapers and planting bombs everywhere were defenseless Americans are.
Creating a sympathetic Democratic state in The middle east could cause a change in the area (of course it did, but not quite as expected I think). Iraq has the possibilities becuase of oil. If the government could be put in place, they could bounce back financially with the wells they are sitting on. A good example of such a nation is Kuwait. Kuwait sells their oil as a nation and sends every citezen an annual check for an unbelievable amount (forgot exactly, but if I remember correctly it was around $25,000). If Iraq rebounds it could easily pay off alot of the costs paid to give them democracy/capatilism, and financially it's people could reenter the world market. This of course is all pending.
As for Iran, I think there is one big reason we are interested in it right now. Iran wants Iraq, and revenge for the bloody Iran/Iraq war. Iran has never really acknowledged Iraq as it's own country, it believes it belongs to Iran, along with all it's oil. With Iraq tetering on whether it will be a sucess or not and the pressure to leave early, it would leave Iraq ripe for the picking. Iran with a nuculear warhead could possibly take over Iraq as the world watches, because of the fear that they will use a Nuke warhead. Use the words "nucular warhead" and the UN would buckle.
At least these are my thoughts.
JHC
Comrade, Reread your points 5-7 and somehow i missed them the first time around. Completely agree with you.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: You were right on the compass, don't know what I was thinking.
Agree that oil does have something to do with it, but I think there is more to it.
Though there are country borders, there are also religious borders and national borders that are different. A good example is in N. Iraq the majority of the population Iranian. Palestinians are strewn through out the middleeast (except in Kuwait where all Palestinians were evicted from), so mere country borders don't work in the western sense.
Saddam had been playing with UN inspectors for 10 years, and kicked them out. There was a need to put force behind UN words of "let us in or else!", as Saddam kept asking theoretically "or else what?"
We are pulling our Army base out of Germany, which is at 1/3rd it's strength, and should be completely out by 2014??? Anyways that leaves a vacuum for our forward bases. I believe the intention is to keep a base in Iraq. Anytime there were missle strikes in the Middle East there were high costs to use the neighboring countries airzone. Iraq is right in the middle. There are alot of issues brewing in that area of the world, so to have a forward base in the area only makes sense.
All the Western-haters are crazily heading towards Iraq. This could be a cleansing as it keeps them attacking those in bases, with weapons, versus flying abroad and crashing into tall skyscrapers and planting bombs everywhere were defenseless Americans are.
Creating a sympathetic Democratic state in The middle east could cause a change in the area (of course it did, but not quite as expected I think). Iraq has the possibilities becuase of oil. If the government could be put in place, they could bounce back financially with the wells they are sitting on. A good example of such a nation is Kuwait. Kuwait sells their oil as a nation and sends every citezen an annual check for an unbelievable amount (forgot exactly, but if I remember correctly it was around $25,000). If Iraq rebounds it could easily pay off alot of the costs paid to give them democracy/capatilism, and financially it's people could reenter the world market. This of course is all pending.
As for Iran, I think there is one big reason we are interested in it right now. Iran wants Iraq, and revenge for the bloody Iran/Iraq war. Iran has never really acknowledged Iraq as it's own country, it believes it belongs to Iran, along with all it's oil. With Iraq tetering on whether it will be a sucess or not and the pressure to leave early, it would leave Iraq ripe for the picking. Iran with a nuculear warhead could possibly take over Iraq as the world watches, because of the fear that they will use a Nuke warhead. Use the words "nucular warhead" and the UN would buckle.
At least these are my thoughts.
JHC
i don't believe that the invasion of iraq was actually sanctioned by the UN, yet you are using Iraq's defiance of UN sanctions as justification for invasion.
would a free and democratic iraq necessarily wan a us base on its soil
what would happen if sometime in the future democracy produces a similar outcome in iraq as in Palestine? a free an democratic iraq does not necessarily mean a sympathetic to the west iraq.
it sounds to me like you want to charge iraq for the privelige of having been invaded, having ite infrasture destroyed, rebuilding it, and bieng occupied.
iraq was perfectly safe from iran under the previous regime. actually iraq itself was a stable country under the previous regime. it seems to me that the invasion of iraq has not only destabilised iraq, but as you put the case, with iran the region.
not that i am a supporter of sadam hussain and his methods.
68 Pontiac wrote: You were right on the compass, don't know what I was thinking.
Agree that oil does have something to do with it, but I think there is more to it.
- Though there are country borders, there are also religious borders and national borders that are different. A good example is in N. Iraq the majority of the population Iranian. Palestinians are strewn through out the middleeast (except in Kuwait where all Palestinians were evicted from), so mere country borders don't work in the western sense.
The population of northern Iraq is Kurdish. Also a Kurdish poulation just across the border in Iran, and Turkey, and Syria. The Kurds want their own nation, as do the Shiites (and Iran can't wait for the Shiites to form a nation-- probably to become part of a greater Iran. It wouldn't be the first time Iran ruled in that area, although it's been centuries, and perhaps millenia, since they've ruled there. For this reason, I don't believe that Iraq will survive after the U.S. leaves, except maybe as a rump Sunni state. The Turks had it right-- three separate provinces. The Brits colloxed it up by lumping those three provionces into one "Nation-State." There are at least three, possibly more, nations in Iraq, and the only thing keeping them together is military force-- through Saddam before, now through us.
- Saddam had been playing with UN inspectors for 10 years, and kicked them out. There was a need to put force behind UN words of "let us in or else!", as Saddam kept asking theoretically "or else what?"
Which is why I wasn't opposed to the invasion. Saddam was playing games that led people to believe that he was rebuilding his military in defiance of U.N. resolutions. In retrosepct, it's still clear that Saddam was playing games, but it's also clear that Bush was manipulating intelleigence to support a pre-determined agenda.
- We are pulling our Army base out of Germany, which is at 1/3rd it's strength, and should be completely out by 2014??? Anyways that leaves a vacuum for our forward bases. I believe the intention is to keep a base in Iraq. Anytime there were missle strikes in the Middle East there were high costs to use the neighboring countries airzone. Iraq is right in the middle. There are alot of issues brewing in that area of the world, so to have a forward base in the area only makes sense.
This argument makes a lot of sense.
- All the Western-haters are crazily heading towards Iraq. This could be a cleansing as it keeps them attacking those in bases, with weapons, versus flying abroad and crashing into tall skyscrapers and planting bombs everywhere were defenseless Americans are.
Perhaps, but our presence there is only multiplying the "western-haters" by orders of magnitude. If creating a sink for the "western-haters" was part of the plan, it was a very poorly thought-out plan.
- Creating a sympathetic Democratic state in The middle east could cause a change in the area (of course it did, but not quite as expected I think). Iraq has the possibilities becuase of oil. If the government could be put in place, they could bounce back financially with the wells they are sitting on. A good example of such a nation is Kuwait. Kuwait sells their oil as a nation and sends every citezen an annual check for an unbelievable amount (forgot exactly, but if I remember correctly it was around $25,000). If Iraq rebounds it could easily pay off alot of the costs paid to give them democracy/capatilism, and financially it's people could reenter the world market. This of course is all pending.
Creating a peaceful, friendly, democratically elected mideast government-- who could argue with that? Only problem is, it's not going to happen.
As for Iran, I think there is one big reason we are interested in it right now. Iran wants Iraq, and revenge for the bloody Iran/Iraq war. Iran has never really acknowledged Iraq as it's own country, it believes it belongs to Iran, along with all it's oil. With Iraq tetering on whether it will be a sucess or not and the pressure to leave early, it would leave Iraq ripe for the picking. Iran with a nuculear warhead could possibly take over Iraq as the world watches, because of the fear that they will use a Nuke warhead. Use the words "nucular warhead" and the UN would buckle.
I think it's clear that Iran wants control of Shiite Iraq. I'm still puzzling over why Iran is pursuing this program. They've already outfoxed us once by getting us to do their bidding in Iraq, and I suspect they've got something up their sleeve that people more informed than me will have to suss out. I seriously doubt,though, that the impetus for nuclear weapons development is to enable them to grab Shiite Iraq. If anything, it would be to enable Iran to emerge as the mideast power.
Time to catch the last bus home, so no more thoughts on it tonight.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
1 i don't believe that the invasion of iraq was actually sanctioned by the UN, yet you are using Iraq's defiance of UN sanctions as justification for invasion.
2 would a free and democtatic iraq necessarily wan a us base on its soil
3 what would happen if sometime in the future democracy produces a similar outcome in iraq as in palestine? a free an democratic iraq does not neccessarily mean a sympathetic to the west iraq.
it sounds to me like you want to charge iraq for the privelige of having been invaded, having ite infrasture destroyed, rebuilding it, and bieng occupied.
iraq was perfectly safe from iran under the previous regime. actually iraq itself was a stable country uner the previous regime. it seems to me that the invasion of iraq has not only destabilised iraq, but as you put the case, with iran the region.
not that i am a supporter of sadam hussain and his methods.
Ron,
Answering in order:
- No, you're right, it was not UN santioned, didn't mean to sound like it was. I was speaking of the arms inspectors and the threats they kept giving, which lead to bombing, which obviously never intimidated Saddam or any other dictator that the UN has threatened. Bush more or less felt it was time to step it up to the next level.
2, 3 & 5. It took 10 years for Japan to become stable after WWII. I have no doubts it will take at least that amount of time to stabalize Iraq. During that stabilization there will more than likely always be a US presence, though obviously not always the size we have now. With Iran drooling and waiting for US to leave, I think it will be in the best interest of Iraq, at this point, for the US to stay until Iraq is stable. If it becomes stable, there is a good chance it could be friendly, like Kuwait. . .but that's a toss of the dice.
- I, personally, do not want to charge Iraq, but I bet that there will be an amount of "indebtness". The new Iraqi government has been borrowing money from the US ever since OIF II started. I'm sure it won't come back as $$$ but possibly better trades with oil???
Hopefully this hasn't gone too far off on the Iraq occupation, as I was trying to have my points lead to the topic of Iran, but did't think it could be explained without the other issues surrounding the area.
JHC
iraq as it is will probably never be a stable country. call me pessimistic. the last few elections have shown that the vote will probably always split along ethnic and religious divides. i don't think there will ever be any pan iraq parties as in other counties ie a traditional left and right party. governments are made up of uneasy coalitions. as the comrade pointed out there are strong separatist tendencies in several of the regions. left to itself. iraq will probably split.
iraq was an artificial creation, and as a state always needed a strong government to keep it together. most likely the us and allies will have to be there for decades to make sure that iraq doesn't split or dare we mention it elects a fundamentalist islamic government.
bush senior knew what he was doing when he didn't invade iraq.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
iraq was an artificial creation, and as a state always needed a strong government to keep it together. most likely the us and allies will have to be there for decades to make sure that iraq doesn't split or dare we mention it elects a fundamentalist islamic government.
Iraq certainly was an artificial creation, named and created by the British in 1920. Another curious fact is that the first person to use chemical weapons on the Kurds was not Saddam, but Winston Churchill.
In hindsight, it was a real shame that us Brits pulled out of Iraq in the 1950's due to military cuts.
68 Pontiac wrote: You were right on the compass, don't know what I was thinking.
Not quite. I looked at a map again last night, and things kind of fell into place. Your theory that we're splitting the "western-haters" by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't really make sense if you look at a map. BUT...
What does make sense is we've surrounded Iran. On Iran's western flank, there's a solid wall: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. On Iran's eastern flank, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now look at Syria: Iraq on its southern flank, Turkey and Jordan friendly with the U.S., chased out of Lebanon...
We've surrounded and isolated two of the most turbulent states in the mideast, and outright invaded and occupied the third. OK, so in a sense, that is “splitting the western-haters,” but I don’t think there’s any evidence that they were cooperating in an anti-western agenda. More like each has their own ambitions in the mideast. Saddam Hussein is a Baathist. The goal of the Baath Party is to create a pan-Arabic state. I’m hazarding a guess, here, and perhaps Woodsy can correct me if I’m wrong, but I would guess that Syria has ambitions to recreate the Ummayad Empire, at least in the middle east. And there is historical precedent for an Iranian empire in the middle east as well. So, my semi-informed opinion is that each of these states has ambitions to dominate mideast politics—after all, each has been historically powerful in the region, and the current national boundaries, and nation-states, were largely created by the British and French. From a historical perspective, we’re just newcomers on the scene, and have only been on the scene for a short period. Taking the long view, each state probably sees itself reestablishing its former glory, if not now, then after we’ve gone. That’s a very long way of saying that there’s no evidence to suggest that Syria, Iraq, and Iran would ever cooperate in some sort of anti-western agenda, except to the extent, perhaps, that such cooperation would further the national aspirations—to rule in the mideast—of these nations.
What makes more sense, to me, is that we’ve surrounded and isolated the most troublesome regimes in the mideast. The reason? We need the stability for our own economic security. We're probably at peak oil now, and world oil production will be declining from this point forward. The mideast still contains sizeable deposits of oil. China is a rapidly emerging power, perhaps to become a superpower in this century. China needs resources, including oil, to continue its rise. Stability in the mideast-- meaning governments stable enough, and friendly enough, to continue supplying oil to the west-- is essential for western economic security. We’ve surrounded and isolated the most troublesome nations in order to create that stability.
We are pulling our Army base out of Germany, which is at 1/3rd it's strength, and should be completely out by 2014??? Anyways that leaves a vacuum for our forward bases. I believe the intention is to keep a base in Iraq. Anytime there were missle strikes in the Middle East there were high costs to use the neighboring countries airzone. Iraq is right in the middle. There are alot of issues brewing in that area of the world, so to have a forward base in the area only makes sense.
In light of geopolitics, this fits perfectly with what we know. With the post-war reconstruction of Europe complete, and the demise of the Soviet Union, there is little if any reason for the United States to retain a large military presence in Germany. The military mission of our European bases—preventing the post-war rise to power of either fascists or communists, checking the advance of the Soviet Union—has been accomplished. The new geopolitics—the rise of anti-American extremists in a region that supplies a vital resource, the advance of an emergent Chinese superpower—argues for a new forward base in the mideast. Iraq may be the perfect place to situate an American military presence. It’s centrally located, it’s not the “holy land” (Saudi Arabia) so our presence there is less inflammatory, it borders Iran and Syria, occupying Iraq removes the third thorn in our side… It makes a lot of sense.
Creating a sympathetic Democratic state in The middle east could cause a change in the area (of course it did, but not quite as expected I think). Iraq has the possibilities becuase of oil. If the government could be put in place, they could bounce back financially with the wells they are sitting on. A good example of such a nation is Kuwait. Kuwait sells their oil as a nation and sends every citezen an annual check for an unbelievable amount (forgot exactly, but if I remember correctly it was around $25,000). If Iraq rebounds it could easily pay off alot of the costs paid to give them democracy/capatilism, and financially it's people could reenter the world market. This of course is all pending.
The only way Iraq will become and remain a “sympathetic democratic state” is if we create a “sympathetic democratic state” and remain in Iraq as “guests” to prevent any other possibility from occurring. First, Iraq is an artificial creation; there are at least three separate nations in Iraq—the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis. The Sunnis are a minority, and are the only Iraqis that want an Iraqi state, but the Iraqi state they want is the one they had—with them running things. The Shiites want, at a minimum, autonomy, and perhaps nationhood. The Kurds want nationhood, but will settle for autonomy as long as we’re in their way. The only thing holding this cobbled-together Frankenstein whole was brute military force. In the absence of brute military force, the separate nations will go their separate ways.
As you noticed while you were there, the Iraqi people have little sense of “democracy.” They’re not alone.
You mention Kuwait as an example of a “sympathetic democratic state.” Kuwait is certainly sympathetic, because the Brits made the state a protectorate, guaranteeing that the al-Sabah family would continue to rule. Kuwait is not a democracy, however—it’s a monarchy, with severely restricted voting rights. I suppose if you’re an aristocratic oilman, however, Kuwait looks like a model government.
As for Iran, I think there is one big reason we are interested in it right now. Iran wants Iraq, and revenge for the bloody Iran/Iraq war. Iran has never really acknowledged Iraq as it's own country, it believes it belongs to Iran, along with all it's oil. With Iraq tetering on whether it will be a sucess or not and the pressure to leave early, it would leave Iraq ripe for the picking. Iran with a nuculear warhead could possibly take over Iraq as the world watches, because of the fear that they will use a Nuke warhead. Use the words "nucular warhead" and the UN would buckle.
First, I doubt Iran is interested in Iraq as it is now constituted. I do believe Iran would like the Shiite portion of Iraq, either as a satellite state, or as part of a greater Iran. I doubt, however, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to take control of Shiite Iraq. If Iran wants Shiite Iraq, there are other ways to accomplish that—through elections, for example. Through secession. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to take Shiite Iraq. Looking at the map again, I think the reason Iran is developing nuclear weapons is because we’ve surrounded Iran, and the Ayatollahs feel their Islamic revolution being threatened. Iran undoubtedly has aspirations to exercise its historic power in the mideast, and with the emergence of China as a competitor for resources, a powerful Iran would become even more powerful, even more wealthy, even more influential. Think the west and China competing for resources, with Iran deciding who gets what, and at what price. The U.S. has already embarked on a course that secures the mideast resources for itself, however. If Iran is to remain independent, and pursue its own agenda, it needs the ability to withstand U.S. military might. Nuclear weapons would make a U.S. invasion of Iran exceedingly costly.
So that’s one possibility—that Iran is feeling threatened, and is developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Another possibility is that Iran is hoping to lure us into military confrontation, on the theory that we’re already overextended, and an invasion of Iran would break our back militarily, at least in the mideast. Or maybe it’s a little of both.
In any event, I think it’s clear that the “gubbins with Iran” is about their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and if anything, the petroeuro theory is just one of a bundle of benefits we would anticipate recouping if we were to invade Iran, but is not the motivating factor.
wow comrade, that is quite an essay. I have made my points above somewhere. I have not changed my position on the issue.
mainly that all that aggro with iran is a good reason to justify a military reason in the region.
i for one don't believe that iran actually poses any real danger (yet) to any of its neighbours. if it did a quick air strike would settle that, and the arab states would probably keep quiet as well, as there is no love lost between them and the persians.
Anyone else having problems with posting? Keeps erasing what I write. AAARRRGGGG!!!!!!
Anyways, ron and comrade, great points, agree with both of you mostly. Comrade, wow, great indepth explination, alot of that I was trying to say in less words. Agree with your refinements as well.
Ron, only beef, is that I think Iraq CAN be successful, but it won't be anytime soon. It will definately take a few generations to accept a new way of life. A new govt like a mirror to the US is too fast and they aren't ready for it. Think it should have a strong "born" leader and elected president and congress/parliment. The "born" leader slowly fades into the backround, similar to Japan's emperor and Britian's Queen. The transition in their mindset would be alot smoother, and would help them to slowly grasps all the new freedoms they have.
Comrade, Jordan keeps being refered as friendly to the US. . .yes and no. The government is "friendly" so we use their people as workers for Iraq. However there are alot of Jordanian insurgents (the believed master mind Zarquawi is Jordanian for one). Quite honest, with alot of dealings with Jordanians that were aiding our cause, they are really crooked and treat the rest of the Middle Easterns as animals (to include Indians as well). How they treated people amazed me. Those people really need a couple courses on human rights.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Anyone else having problems with posting? Keeps erasing what I write. AAARRRGGGG!!!!!
Are you being timed out? Before you hit "submit", copy your text first, in case you get timed out. That way, if you get timed out, you can just log back in and paste your text into a reply. Alternatively, write in word and then cut & paste.
Thanks will keep that in mind, see my edit on the above post? Noticed yours hit before my edit.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade, Jordan keeps being refered as friendly to the US. . .yes and no. The government is "friendly"
Yeah, that's what I meant.
68 Pontiac wrote: Anyone else having problems with posting? Keeps erasing what I write. AAARRRGGGG!!!!!!
Anyways, ron and comrade, great points, agree with both of you mostly. Comrade, wow, great indepth explination, alot of that I was trying to say in less words. Agree with your refinements as well.
Ron, only beef, is that I think Iraq CAN be successful, but it won't be anytime soon. It will definately take a few generations to accept a new way of life. A new govt like a mirror to the US is too fast and they aren't ready for it. Think it should have a strong "born" leader and elected president and congress/parliment. The "born" leader slowly fades into the backround, similar to Japan's emperor and Britian's Queen. The transition in their mindset would be alot smoother, and would help them to slowly grasps all the new freedoms they have.
JHC
just one problem with this born leader. the middle east does not have a great track record of such leaders disappearing. they tend to hang onto power. heck this born leader could turn into the next sadam hussain.
True, quite true Ron. A quagmire isn't it. (well it's probably misspelled, but you get the idea).
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
However there are alot of Jordanian insurgents (the believed master mind Zarquawi is Jordanian for one). JHC
Just to make it clear, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's family live in Jordan, but are fiercely Palestinian, the country they fled from.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
68 Pontiac wrote:
However there are alot of Jordanian insurgents (the believed master mind Zarquawi is Jordanian for one). JHC
Just to make it clear, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's family live in Jordan, but are fiercely Palestinian, the country they fled from.
Not doubting you Burt, but where did you get his info? Never heard about it. I only have info that he was Jordanian. Of course Palestinians are all over the place in the ME. They are considered the "lowest of low" in the ME, so everynation keeps kicking them out, then accepted, but usually getting a raw deal. Not really sure of the history behind that.
Anyways where did you get that info? Interested.
JHC
I was in a chat room forum over a year ago, not long after he had beheaded a Brit. Ken Bigley was his name. I was surprised to hear he was Jordanian, so i looked it up.
I can't find the original source, but the following link is quite thorough.
And the history of Palestine is widely regarded as the real starting point of the recent wave of problems in the Middle East, if you want to look into it.
I guess our ill-advised creation of the state of Israel in 1949 is probably the catalyst for much of the grievances. Palestinian migration to other countries since then has gone over five million.
This is, I guess, another thread entirely, and a very contentious one too.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Locked and loaded-- ready for battle. Except I'm too busy...
Comrade..
It's something I know far too little about, and hell, it's probably the most contentious subject one could post about in modern political history.
My views, however simplified, are that the problem originates from the creators of the mess, not the two groups fighting for the territory.
I would say that the death toll, as a result of it, must be close to holocaustal proportions.
I think another thread is in order, if this subject is taken on, and I'm not starting it!
Well, from what I understand, the plan was always to create two states in Palestine, with Jerusalem as an international city. And I agree that most of the mess in the mideast can eventually be distilled down to the fight over Palestine.
I'm not starting that thread either.
Hell.. let's just keep to Iran etc. I don't want to go there, either.
I was just giving Pontiac a few pointers on a subject you could spend a lifetime and a half studying and still not understand.
I think Pontiac is right, actually. From our cultural perspective, when you have a disagreement, both sides give something up, both sides gain something, you make your adjustments and move on. From a mideast cultural perspective, you never give an inch, and you carry your grudge forward for all eternity.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I think Pontiac is right, actually. From our cultural perspective, when you have a disagreement, both sides give something up, both sides gain something, you make your adjustments and move on. From a mideast cultural perspective, you never give an inch, and you carry your grudge forward for all eternity.
That is kinda linked to religion though. In the West, religion is still held in high esteem by some (nothing wrong with choice - its a democracy etc); but generally numbers of people attending church has declined roughly corresponding to the increase in educational standards and a move away from church based education. We also have a system which allows for multi-religious views and different forms of worship.
Not at all fair to say Middle Eastern people are uneducated, but much of their education system is based on religious views and moral standards linked to religious texts.
I hate to use the example, but England behaved in a similar manner for centuries. We hated other countries for belief systems alien to ours, and in many cases invaded them as a result.
Is this all a little bit of history repeating?
or is this another thread?..lol
Burt,
Actually you are right when it comes to the ME and education. There is a HUGE gap between the few rich and the populous of destitute. The rich are VERY well educated, usually sending their children to other countries for college and learning about western culture, and embracing it. The majority of the polulace, however, is in a caste system. The generation of sheepherders and they have extreme difficulty in getting out of the family business. So education for, let's say, a sheepherder isn't necissary. Education is seen as hurting the family business. The child could either be learning things at school that have nothing to do with sheepherding or they could stay at home and help raise sheep, helping them get money they desperately need. So in a poor area, like Ar Ramadi, the average school level of adults is the second grade. This leads to an ignorant public, and probably the main reason they follow their emums so religiously, which are well educated. Granted this is not in every ME country, but the majority of them.
JHC
Wellll, without wanting to upset religious people (religion and politics in one thread! - oh joy), religion tends to thrive in poorer countries in general, which often have an unfunded education system.
In the UK, church attendance has fallen from close to 100% in 1880 to around 6% or less currently. This fall is linked to the rise in state sponsored education rather than religious based education. I'm sure the figures are similar in the USA, although probably due to considerable regional flux.
Life in parts of the Middle East must be so harsh, that the belief that 'one will end up in a better place' is probably a very strong one; the driving force in most belief systems is a lack of luxury and comfort, although there are many individual exceptions. Unfortunately this creates a country of 'sheep follwing the shepherd' whereas free thought allows us to engage in forums like this.
The Middle East is medieval in some respects, and the only thing that can cure this is time. Thats if we believe our way is right.
Well your remarks could very easily open a can of worms, a education vs. religon debate, but I'll stay away from that. This is what I was more or less elluding to in the begining of this thread, though I may have not done it so well.
At least, in Iraq, we are trying to increase education, by making sure the schools are well supplied. The difficulty was that there were insurgants threatening schoolchildren, and trying to protect them has been difficult. Also we have built many schoolhouses, and not more than three months later they are blowing them up. Why the people are doing this to schoolhouses is beyond me.
Which reminds me of something often stated, that the Iraq occupation is similar to the Vietnam Conflict. I understand their reasoning, but there is one large difference: The Veit Cong had a central unified command and endstate (communism), whereas the insurgents have no real central command, they are more or less are complaining but with no solution of thier own. In short, the Viet Cong were organized, whereas the insurgents are not.
Forgive me as that probably also is another thread all in itself.
JHC
Burt Reynolds wrote:
The Middle East is medieval in some respects, and the only thing that can cure this is time. Thats if we believe our way is right.
who are we to judge another culture, or for that matter cultures as medieval or inferior. granted we have different values in the west. but any culture is just as valid as the next.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
The Middle East is medieval in some respects, and the only thing that can cure this is time. Thats if we believe our way is right.
who are we to judge another culture, or for that matter cultures as medieval or inferior. granted we have different values in the west. but any culture is just as valid as the next.
Have to say when people are forcing others to be ignorant for their own benefit of power. . .well that is wrong, no matter what the culture.
JHC
68 Pontiac wrote:
Also we have built many schoolhouses, and not more than three months later they are blowing them up. Why the people are doing this to schoolhouses is beyond me.
JHC
well i say the answer is quite simple. the insurgents see these schoolhouses, and what is being taught in them as a symbol of foreign oppression.
68 Pontiac wrote:
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
The Middle East is medieval in some respects, and the only thing that can cure this is time. Thats if we believe our way is right.
who are we to judge another culture, or for that matter cultures as medieval or inferior. granted we have different values in the west. but any culture is just as valid as the next.
Have to say when people are forcing others to be ignorant for their own benefit of power. . .well that is wrong, no matter what the culture.
JHC
i agree education is the answer, well it is to many problems, but what are you going to do. these are sovereign states, and as such they have the right to conduct their affairs as they see fit. countries, especially in the middle east tend to get a bit touchy, when foreign powers, or ngos try to interfere in their internal affairs.
I think the insurgents target schools for the same reason the U.S.-funded contras targetted schools-- to destabilize the country.
Comrade Champany wrote: I think the insurgents target schools for the same reason the U.S.-funded contras targeted schools-- to destabilize the country.
good point. the civilian population will never feel completely safe as long as that is going on.
Ronald Kirsch wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
The Middle East is medieval in some respects, and the only thing that can cure this is time. Thats if we believe our way is right.
who are we to judge another culture, or for that matter cultures as medieval or inferior. granted we have different values in the west. but any culture is just as valid as the next.
OK.. the word may have connotations, but I used Medieval in terms of comparing it to a point in British history. I cannot think of a more appropriate word. It certainly didnt suggest inferior, just less developed; whether a more developed culture is a good nothing or necessary is up to individual cultures to decide. I know the British destroyed enough cultures by imposing Western ideas on them in the past.
Hmmm...
Just noticed on the news that Iran has tentatively agreed a programme of 'uranium enrichment' with Russia, to take place in Russia, for the benefit of nuclear power.
No need for conflict then?
