0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 10:21 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Pursuing the China tangent here, I think China has the potential to be the true moderator in the Middle East in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict that the US never could be. China doesn't have a stake in the conflict like the way the US does.

Of course, the fact that they're a facist dictatorship is of no importance.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 10:36 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Pursuing the China tangent here, I think China has the potential to be the true moderator in the Middle East in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict that the US never could be. China doesn't have a stake in the conflict like the way the US does.

Of course, the fact that they're a facist dictatorship is of no importance.


Who? China? Is a what now???
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 10:44 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Pursuing the China tangent here, I think China has the potential to be the true moderator in the Middle East in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict that the US never could be. China doesn't have a stake in the conflict like the way the US does.


I think they could be more than useful with North Korea. Perhaps with the new huge contracts, maybe Iran as well. I don't think they have the contact that would be necessary to do much with Palestine/Israel, but perhaps through Iran. Who knows though, they sure can't fubar it up any worse than we have. I'm not sure any of the main powers has what it takes to affect Palestine. Perhaps one or more of the Mid Eastern countries. Hard to tell, we'll have to see what develops.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 11:26 pm
No, China is still governed by the Communist Party. It is a Party that has evolved well-beyond the turbulence to the Mao years, but its the same dynasty. The CCP is awake to their population/resources problem, and they've begun to loosen their control over private ownership of businesses. State owned and run businesses are on the decrease, but a certain amount of central control is retained. The results of the CCPs new policies have been dramatic. The economy has been growing at a phenomenal rate with no signs yet of inflation. There is a wider selection of consumer products available, and the number of consumers is up. Where once the bicycle ruled supreme, now China's roadways are being increasingly stressed by gas-guzzling automobiles with little pollution control.

The CCPs attempt to slow the growth rate has been uneven. Births are down, but not by nearly enough to keep the population within manageable limits. Traditional ways still prevail over most of the countryside, but in the urban areas a new Chinese cult of narcissism seems to be growing. Large scale public works like the big dam may add considerable amounts of rich agricultural soil. Depending upon how the land is managed, that may reduce the risk of flood and famine for years to come. On the other hand, Chinese agriculture has a number of problems that will also probably remain unresolved for years to come. So far the CCP has shown itself flexible enough to make long over due changes in their economic structure.

But the story isn't over, and we all don't get to live happily ever after. China is facing some problems that could easily topple the CCP leaving chaos in its wake. Flood, Famine and Disease have always been recurring themes in China's long history, and the traditional Chinese culture was well adapted to the cycles. After the KMT was ousted and for a couple of generations thereafter unremitting war has been waged on tradition and peasant folkways. Molding Chinese peasants into Soviet Man has been a political and economic failure, but still the old ways can never be called back. The CCP will not gracefully retire, but will fight tenaciously for survival of the system, if not the regime. They will, if pushed to the wall become a threat well beyond the region. The CCP has long been engaged in espionage around the world, with its primary focus being advanced military technology, and industrial trade secrets.

China has the same stake in Iran that the United States has. Both need oil. To get oil out of Southwest Asia and into their economic systems. That requires regional stability. and predictable production/cost rates. Wars and military conflict have an unfortunate tendency to make things unpredictable, and for valuable property to be damaged or destroyed. Neither China nor its new trading partners in the world want military conflict. Everyone wants Iran to come to its senses and drop its nuclear weapons programs ... nukes are bad for business. Iran, it seems is determined to throw the dice ... and it seems like that might workout in the short run.

Iran wants to sell oil to China, and that may give China some small influence, but not much. After all, the Iranian Mullah's despise the Communists even more than they hate materialistic Christians and Jews. Nor are the Iranians foolish enough to try terrorist tactics on the CCP who is known to have many less scruples than any US administration. The Chinese probably feel similar contempt for the Iranians, but business is business and the New CCP is more interested in business than ideology. Anyone have late news on an oil pipline between Iran and China? Laughing

Finally, just a word .........

Tico and Anon, ye're both far too quick to be offended and responde by sling around angry words. I think that Anon did say somethings that can easily be found offensive to our servicemen. From what I'm told the Anon's remarks were made in a moment of passion and were directed at a small group of soldiers accused of criminal wrongdoing, not US soldiers in general. However, I think that you may have overreacted. Time to let it go now. Please don't bring up that particular incident again. Please.

Anon, the more I come to know you the more I have the sense that you are a bitter man, and angry a lot. Given your history, that is understandable and I'm sure almost any of us in similar circumstances would be just as bitter and angry as you seem to be. Time to let it go now. The men who hurt you I presume were arrested and have been punished. They were criminals, the not the US Army or the government.

Taco need not be your enemy, but he can never be anything more so long as you both continue this feud. It does no honor to either of you to continue sniping at one another. Try the occasional act of kindness, be a little patient, and above all be more careful of your language it is loaded and dangerous ... never point it at a person. This incident should demonstrate to you, and many others, how a few hot words hastily posted can be taken far differently than you intended. Once words have been released out into the world, they can not be called home. The more shocking or momentous the words the longer they will remain in memory. I truly hope, as a new friend, that you can overcome the bitterness and bank the anger so that it doesn't burn up the life you have left.

Say, Amen children
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 11:29 pm
nimh wrote:
Anyway - if thats all you got from her post, I wouldnt do any better.


Yeah...I don't know why I tried. You might well do better, though!

Sorry Anon, 'tis like bumping gums and gnashing teeth in the wilderness, to shamelessly mix metaphors and split infinitives.


Asherman, if you EVER call me your child I give you fair warning that you'll get a kick up the Khyber faster than a ferret goes down a rabbit hole.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 01:02 am
Quote:
[UK Foreign Minister]Jack Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support the United States in military action against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed President George Bush by warning that ruling out military action would send out a "message of weakness" to Iran.
Full report
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 01:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
[UK Foreign Minister]Jack Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support the United States in military action against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed President George Bush by warning that ruling out military action would send out a "message of weakness" to Iran.
Full report

Most of the wars of the past have been engaged in without the tiniest regard to international law. Traditionally, the only condition for making war has been that the country felt it could benefit from the war.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 01:26 am
Realpolitik from Brandon, there.

A view of US policy and policymakers from abroad:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/04/19/bell1.jpg
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 03:07 am
Asherman wrote:
Anyone have late news on an oil pipline between Iran and China? Laughing


Quote:
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3514925.stm

...exporting oil to the east, rather than the west, requires a 3,000 kilometre pipeline right across the plains of central Kazakhstan.

This pipeline is now taking shape. Two sections already exist; two more sections must be built to connect them.

It is the last and longest section, from central Kazakhstan to the Chinese border which the two countries plan to begin building this summer.


And there are already pipelines through the Caspian from Kazakhstan to Iran.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 03:14 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
[UK Foreign Minister]Jack Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support the United States in military action against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed President George Bush by warning that ruling out military action would send out a "message of weakness" to Iran.
Full report


Whoa....
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 03:23 am
from indy article above

Quote:
France understands Mr Blair's argument that keeping the military option on the table would keep up the pressure on Iran. But it is to urge London to press the Bush administration to soften its approach so it no longer treats Iran as a "rogue state" but engages in a wider dialogue with Tehran on terrorism, the Middle East peace process and oil.

Yesterday there was a rare, informal meeting of US and Iranian embassy diplomats at the Commons organised by the Foreign Policy Centre think-tank to launch its pamphlet Understanding Iran.


Seems as if President Steve's view is gaining weight.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 03:26 am
sorry I misspoke there. Treating with Iran is appeasing terrorism. And of course appeasing terrorists is something we never do. Except when we want to.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 06:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
NATO has flubbed Afghanistan


Blaming General Lance L. Smith, US Air Force, now, McGentrix? (He's the chief commanding officer of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.)

Or all the member states? (In that case not the USA and UK, I suppose.)

Quote:
ISAF currently numbers about 9,000 troops from 35 NATO and non-NATO troop contributing countries.

Who is in charge?

The political direction and co-ordination for the mission is provided by NATO's principal decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Based on the political guidance from the Council, strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's top operational headquarters, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium.


Then you agree that any failure in Afghanistan does not lie solely on the shoulders of the US?


We should not have diverted from Afghanistan so much of our resources so soon to Iraq. Unlike Iraq, the Taliban was actually harboring Bin Laden who was part of the masterminds behind the attack on 9/11. We should have stayed to finish the job, not going off to Iraq who did not attack our country and was not a threat us. So George Bush did flub up Afghanistan and he flubbed up Iraq and it is plain that the spreading of democracy is not having the desired effect of electing moderates sympathetic to US interest. Now because their poll numbers are low, they want to strike Iran or at least give the appearance of planning it. I hope that is all it is.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 06:53 am
Revel, if that is all it is, It is STILL bad! Ever since the topic of air strikes on Iran hit the news (Seymour Hersch) I have been trying to read between the lines. There was a letter to the editor in today's WAPO: "Coercive Diplomacy is an Oxymoron! Yikes!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 08:14 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
sorry I misspoke there. Treating with Iran is appeasing terrorism. And of course appeasing terrorists is something we never do. Except when we want to.


Riffing from Orwell, we were once engaged in multi-think. Reagan's administration traded with Iran (mostly spare parts for their American weapons systems) through proxies, such as Oliver North, in order to obtain the funds to support the Contras of Nicaragua. Both activities had been made illegal by Congress. We also gave both financial and moral support to the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, to fight a proxy war for us against Iran. In Hussein's trial yesterday, his signature was confirmed by handwriting experts on an order to kill Shi'ites in an Iraqi village in 1982--when he was good buddies with the Reagan administration. Few things are as disgusting as the image of Rumseld, complete with "sh!t-eatin' grin," shaking the hand of Hussein.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

What's to choose among all the theives and supporters of terrorists when the Reagan administration tried to play both sides against the middle, slaughtered peasants in Iran, Iraq and Nicaragua be damned? The neo-cons in this administration are all graduates of the Reagan School of Hypocritical Self-interested International Skullduggery . . . er, i mean, "Diplomacy."
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 08:26 am
Set,

Points such as you have made above are either quickly forgotten or ignored by our righteous right!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 09:16 am
Quote:
Most of the wars of the past have been engaged in without the tiniest regard to international law. Traditionally, the only condition for making war has been that the country felt it could benefit from the war.


Of course, the best way to get other countries to respect international laws, is to break them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 11:21 am
Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil discussions with Iran, officials say http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Cheney_has_tapped_Iranian_expatriate_arms_0420.html
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 11:43 am
Surveil, what a dumb word.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 11:52 am
sounds so to our ears mct, but its used as a verb in american english Sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/03/2025 at 09:25:22