The real reason behind all this gubbins with Iran?

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.

I think it's called sarcasim, but I'll leave well enough alone.

JHC

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...

glad to see that pontiac and burt have finally made up.

wasn't this thread about iran?

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.