Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As for your links, I've no doubt there are sympathetic Syrians and Iranians who are travelling to Iraq to fight the occupiers, much as Muslims once travelled to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan.
Syrians, yes. Iranians, no.
Given US imperialism's past and thier recent history particularly in the middle east, it is beyond naive to think that any American military campaign in the middle east will make the west any safer.
I am aware of British and French colonies in the South Pacific, for example. We have the British Queen on our money. I am unaware of any such arrangement between the US and any country in the Middle East.

To be more direct, Americans would like nothing more than bring their troops home and let Elf-Aquitaine or Petro-Canada sign deals with an Iraqi government. You tell me, who buys most of Saudi oil?

I believe the last two listed are among August1991's pet peeves.
Agreed. I find the Dear endearing. And I find your posts no imposture.

----

Bush Jnr clearly wants to "pull a Reagan" and ramp up the pressure on Iran. The theory is that with pressure, the regime will collapse through its own "internal contradictions".

I happen to think that Reagan was lucky and the Soviet Union collapsed because of chance. Reagan or not, the Soviet Union could have survived for many more years. So too, I think, the current Iranian regime.

One wild card is the Iraqi elections. Let's see which Shia group wins. After all, Iraq is now really a Shia majority country.

I exaggerate but I feel many westerners, in the case of Iraq, are surprised to learn that "Rhodesia is now really Zimbabwe and the White Rhodesians are angry about foreign interference."

Watch for many reports about violent Baghdadi Iraqis - but where are the reports about the Marsh Arabs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I think the threat of war on Iran (Iraq II) is not real, because there is a big difference the two countries. 95 % of the Iranians hate the regime and a strong organized opposition, exists inside and outside the country. Actually as an appeasement policy during the Clinton administration, State Department put the Iranian opposition, PMOI and the National Council of Resistance of Iran in the list of terrorist organizations to start negotiations with Rafsanjani.

If bush is real about making a move on Iran, it is only logical that his first act be working with the opposition. This would shake the Ayatollahs the most. Bush has mentioned the Iranian people factor in several speeches but has not clarified how and what yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we follow through with what almost happened on the West Wing.

Let Tony Blair send some fighter-bombers over to strike nuclear plants. Iran is a big threat to the Europe. Missiles are capable of getting halfway to London already. But, then again, I think that bombing is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice all the interest in attacking middle eastern "oil" countries but North Korea where there is the biggest threat from an unstable dictator; there is silence. It is not because the citizens of that country are enjoying a better esixtence than the Iraqis were. Why is there no big interest in North Korea. No booty?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Afghanistan was a legitimate target with the al qaeda there. Note how few Americans stuck around to control that government. They quickly boogied to other places where they could get goodies to pay for the excursion. That is the problem; more attention should have been given to Afghanistan to ensure that the alqaeda were finished off and not allowed to return.

How come it took so much longer to turn the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis???? Iraq was not a bed of terrorists before the USA invasion; it is now, though

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Bush's Iran intelligence "weak": report

A presidential commission due to report to President George W. Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate and not complete enough to allow firm judgments about that country's illicit weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

Good intel? Bad intel? Does it matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Black Dog,

QUOTE (August1991 @ Feb 23 2005, 09:55 PM)

Afghanistan: World of Booty. 

*cough*naturalgas*cough*

Let's not forget opium. Contrary to the opinion of the 'right', the Taliban was not funded by drug money, in fact they almost eradicated opium production from Afghanistan. It has been known for 'intelligence agencies', such as the CIA and the Mossad, to pad their clandestine budgets with illicit money. After all, you wouldn't want the 'terrorists' to control that money, would you?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Personally I thought they were next right after they invaded Iraq.

Geographicaly it would be easy. The US has control of Afghanistan, Iraq, and most of the Persian Gulf. Militarily it will very tough. Iran has a miliraty that will put up a good fight. Politicaly it would be a very bad idea.

Not to sure if it will be a joint operation with Isreal/US but it is a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen. Iraq and Iran are totally different scenarios. First, Iran is not as strategic as Iraq in America's attempt to crush al-Qaeda. Second, geographically, the two countries are totally different. Iraq, or at least non-Kurd Iraq, is flat as a pancake. Much of Iran is mountainous. Third, Iran has 70 million people. Iraq has 25 million. Fourth, the government of Iran is not despised in the region as Saddam was. Fifth, if you think the resistence is bad in Iraq, its nothing compared to Iran. Most of Iraq is quiet because most of Iraq will benefit from the new government. All the terrorism is occurring in the Sunni triangle by a fairly small minority. In Iran, the Persian resistence would be widespread and massive. Finally, Iran and the US are working together in Iraq. The US is trying to establish a legitamite government in Iraq, which will be Shi'a dominated. Iran will have influence in Iraq because Iran is a shi'a country.

The United States has plans to invade Iraq because the United States must have contingency plans for the region. That's not surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Dog does give some insight for the coughgascough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.
US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Let's not forget Karzai used to be a consultant for Unocal. Interesting.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm

Whoa, hold on. Now I see what the big fuss is about for China wanting to buy into Unocal. Now I also see why the US does not want them to have any part of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)

So this is what Afghanstan is all about. And Canada's in there as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there no big interest in North Korea. No booty?????

Well, there's these things called nuclear weapons, which greatly complicates the situation. :rolleyes:

What really complicates things is Seoul being within close range of thousands and thousands of artillery pieces and a fanatic army which could swarm across the border and start a war which could kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)

This is nonsense. Its mixing cause and effect. Afghanistan was not about a pipeline. To a certain segment of the political spectrum, its always about America and oil. They will stretch to fit the facts around the thesis, as all ideologues do.

But on topic, America will not invade Iran but there may be a military strike against any perceived nuclear capabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran 10 years from nukes: report
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

If Bush uses this in a speech, and next year the mullahs announce that they've got nukes, will this mean that BUSH LIED?!? I mean, for consistency's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bush uses this in a speech, and next year the mullahs announce that they've got nukes, will this mean that BUSH LIED?!? I mean, for consistency's sake.

I think the more likely scenario is the report in question will be carefully reviewed by the Vice President's people and vetted so that it indicates Iran is 10 minutes away from launching a nuclear strike on Branson, MO. That would be consistency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...