View Full Version : Will Israel Attack Iran? - NYTimes.com
I thought this was interesting and timely enough for its own topic instead of the "top articles" thread
-
Will Israel Attack Iran? - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
-----
I fear that Ali Bama will attack Iran in a huge diversionary tactic to get his Musloid ass re-elected. :rolleyes:
I hope if they do, we stay the hell out of it.
Let them finish something they stared.
I hope if they do, we stay the hell out of it.
Let them finish something they stared.
Abso****inglutely.
Time to cut the leash.
The Iranians are getting smarter. Instead of rattling sabers, talking shit and playing war games they're threatening their own sanctions against the EU by halting oil exports to the region. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-hits-back-eu-own-oil-embargo-threat-190554131.html
Doc Safari
01-27-12, 17:10
The Iranians are getting smarter. Instead of rattling sabers, talking shit and playing war games they're threatening their own sanctions against the EU by halting oil exports to the region. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-hits-back-eu-own-oil-embargo-threat-190554131.html
So we just force war on an accelerated pace.
Can you say "Six-dollar-a-gallon-gas?"
Although I certainly think Israel has a right to defend itself, is the rest of the world ready?
WARNING:
I know that some of us are not fond of the current occupant of the white house, but please refrain from using profanity in addressing that person or anybody else.
Thanks.
I thought this was interesting and timely enough for its own topic instead of the "top articles" thread
Whack job holocaust denying mullah's with nukes, end well it will not.
Moose-Knuckle
01-27-12, 18:38
They already have. . .
http://rt.com/news/iran-israel-secret-war-939/
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96735
They already have. . .
http://rt.com/news/iran-israel-secret-war-939/
Just informationally, the "Bergman" they quote in the above article is the author of the article that appeared in the NYT which is give in the original post I made below.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96735
Suwannee Tim
01-27-12, 19:18
I hope if they do, we stay the hell out of it.
Let them finish something they stared.
Iran will unleash their terrorist cadres here and close the Straits of Hormuz. We will be in the fight whether we want to be or not.
DeltaSierra
01-27-12, 20:12
Iran will unleash their terrorist cadres here and close the Straits of Hormuz. We will be in the fight whether we want to be or not.
:lol:
Oh, what a simple world it must be in which whatever side you are on is automatically the side of the good guys...
The only problem with that line of thought being that in every war, every conflict, the soldiers on both sides believed they were fighting for justice, freedom, God, or something that rightfully belonged to them, therefore making it easier to justify their involvement in the war, be they Crusaders attempting to take the Holy City, or US troops attempting to seize control of a small third-world country in Central America for the direct benefit of certain corporate interests...
The point here is that it is an unrealistically simplistic idea to think that the any country is always right, and anyone that they have ever attacked was always in the wrong.
If you look at the real history, the US has been after Iran for quite some time. The US funded Saddam Hussein's attack Iran in 1980, and the Iranians know this full well. Add to that the shooting down of Iranian Air Flight 655, by a foreign (US) vessel that was admitted to be in Iranian territorial waters, and it shouldn't be to hard to understand why they might hold a grudge...
Moose-Knuckle
01-27-12, 20:43
If you look at the real history, the US has been after Iran for quite some time. The US funded Saddam Hussein's attack Iran in 1980, and the Iranians know this full well. Add to that the shooting down of Iranian Air Flight 655, by a foreign (US) vessel that was admitted to be in Iranian territorial waters, and it shouldn't be to hard to understand why they might hold a grudge...
In 1953 the CIA had ran an op known as the Iranian coup d'état and the British had been f'n about in Iran for years prior to our meddling.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor. We all remember what happened in Tehran when Jimmy was in office. Brzezinksi is now one of Obama's closest advisors.
Hmm. . .
The globalists want Iran plain and simple.
Someone much wiser than me once said, "I don't trust Ahmadinejad with a concealed carry permit...much less a nuke."
Unnamed entities have been hitting Iranian nuclear interest for the past 10 years using clandestine means such as last week's motorcycle bomb attack against their top scientist. These efforts are most likely multi-national in their planning and execution, and I'm sure that the US is at the very least aware of these attacks before they happen. I suspect that we will be involved in more widespread attacks, but I bet that we will maintain deniability if possible. I have a hard time seeing Obama addressing the nation from the Oval Office with an statement that begins with, "My fellow Americans, today I authorized the use of military force against the Islamic Republic of Iran. As I speak, our fighting men and women are..."
If you look at the real history, the US has been after Iran for quite some time. The US funded Saddam Hussein's attack Iran in 1980, and the Iranians know this full well. Add to that the shooting down of Iranian Air Flight 655, by a foreign (US) vessel that was admitted to be in Iranian territorial waters, and it shouldn't be to hard to understand why they might hold a grudge...
I have a question: Why would we be be "after" Iran? Is there some resort property or commercial parking that they have? Is it their oil that we want? Outside of their nuclear ambitions as a state sponsor of terrorism, I'm just not seeing Iran as some special itch that must be scratched.
Moose-Knuckle
01-27-12, 21:37
I have a question: Why would we be be "after" Iran? Is there some resort property or commercial parking that they have? Is it their oil that we want? Outside of their nuclear ambitions as a state sponsor of terrorism, I'm just not seeing Iran as some special itch that must be scratched.
They did not have nukes in 1953 nor were they hijacking airliners.
Cause and effect, terrorism is a by-product known as blowback.
They did not have nukes in 1953 nor were they hijacking airliners.
Cause and effect, terrorism is a by-product known as blowback.
My question was not directed at the cause of terrorism. I'll assume that you got that one right and that Iran, A-stan, and all of the other Islamist freedom fighters are just responding to our aggression.
My question is directed toward your statement that the US and other globalist nations are "after" or "want" Iran. Why? What is there to gain that we could not have already taken from Iraq (or Kuwait for that matter)?
My question is directed toward your statement that the US and other globalist nations are "after" or "want" Iran. Why? What is there to gain that we could not have already taken from Iraq (or Kuwait for that matter)?
Thank you. I bring this up every time someone tries to make that point. Nobody has a good answer. If we wanted a source of oil, we would never have given Iraq back to the Iraqi's. Hell, we did not even enter into a sweet deal for cheap oil. Keeping Iraq would have been much easier than taking Iran.
We have our own oil...we just do not have the political will to drill for it.
I have a question: Why would we be be "after" Iran? Is there some resort property or commercial parking that they have? Is it their oil that we want? Outside of their nuclear ambitions as a state sponsor of terrorism, I'm just not seeing Iran as some special itch that must be scratched.
Yes, that's a valid question. Oil? You'll have to dig much deeper than that.
Strip away the modern names and what we're left with is Persia, Arabia and the Land of Israel. Could there be a more tempestuous mix in all the world? Since the dawn of civilization, the fertile crescent has given rise to empires. Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Byzantine, Persian, Arab, Ottoman, etc. Pretty much everyone in human history has vied for control of that region. Many have used religion as both a reason for conquest and a method of control. The cradle of civilization has given rise to some of the bloodiest human history.
How does Israel factor in? It's pretty much been ruled by all of them. For a historical perspective of Israel and the empires, Maps of War has an excellent graphic that shows the last 5000 years in 90 seconds. http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
Which brings us to today. By modern standards, Israel is pretty much ruled by the American Empire. Is that rule uncontested? Hardly. The Arabs seem to have foregone the traditional method of empire building by seizing lands militarily, in favor of seizing minds through Islam. Yet while the House of Saud openly espouses Salafist Islam, they openly practice dynastic imperialism, at least at home. So while they're not an overt and omnipresent threat, they're always just over the hill.
As for Persia, they were a once independent empire struggling under both Russian and British control. They finally exerted independence in the 20's with the rise of the 1st Shah. They were largely independent until WWII, when the Allies forced a regime change for military reasons. The Allies installed the 2nd Shah, who was pretty much a puppet. In the early 50's Mosaddeq became the Prime Minister of Iran, enacting nationalist reforms that were neither monarchy nor cleric based, but it was short lived. We overthrew him and reinstalled the 2nd Shah, who remained our puppet until the late 70's. During this period, the US and Israeli intelligence services helped the Shah form the SAVAK, which brutally quelled internal dissent in during the Shah's regime.
Having finally regained independence in the late 70's, Persia/Iran soon set their sights on ensuring they would not be externally ruled again. Hence their nuclear program desires. Iran has every reason to loathe the US and Israel, both of which have nuclear arsenals. So why would Israel get involved in Iran's internal politics? I refer you back to the 90 second graphic posted above. Israel will never be an empire, therefore destabilization of potential empires is their best defense.
We've openly sided with Israel and Saudi Arabia. We've attempted several methods in trying to control Iran. If you were Persian, how would you view the most powerful nation in the world siding with your two main rivals and subverting your lands and people? You'd probably think that was pretty shitty of them, wouldn't you? Well I wouldn't fret over their angst too much. After all, they've historically been pretty shitty to others themselves.
There have been several opportunities for modern Iran to become democratic and stable, but the world powers have rebuffed all of them. Why? Who knows? Too much competition in the region perhaps?
One thing is for sure though, The United States, not even a quarter of a millennium old, from half a world away, is riding herd on two of the three most powerful forces in the middle east, while simultaneously harassing the third on a continual basis for the past seven decades, or nearly a third of our existence. We might as well be riding Cerberus bareback while holding God's lightning bolt in one hand and a sack full of dynamite in the other.
Now how could oil possibly compete with that? :confused:
the easy thing to do would not veto the pipreine from Canada:rolleyes:Oops already happen .
would it not be better to say "we no longer need your Oil "? they would shit bricks and prices at the pump would drop and the Middle east would be forced to sell their oil at rock bottom prices which would be a big bite to their wallets.
which would cause more damage than a war in my opinion .I wish for a day we no longer play the cat and mouse game over there every time some new yahoo wants to play tough guy.
But remember Israel will hit them and not ask the UN like we did with Irag and 8 months go by .they will fly in Bomb them and say it was Justified .and we will back them .
I never understand why we are always there for them the Brits created that mess back in the day let them deal with it
Iran will unleash their terrorist cadres here and close the Straits of Hormuz. We will be in the fight whether we want to be or not.
False.
You must listen to Rush Pillhead huh?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-28-12, 09:13
False.
You must listen to Rush Pillhead huh?
How? How is this false? Without betraying OPSEC I cant say very much. But all I know is that we've already had some SUPER close calls in some congested water ways with our persian friends. If Israel starts something, we are by far the easiest targets in the world as far as convenience of location.
Whats your proof? Where are you sitting right now?
I hope if they do, we stay the hell out of it.
Let them finish something they stared.
I agree that we should stop our historic policy of preventing Israel from achieving a decisive victory.
would it not be better to say "we no longer need your Oil "?
I can't claim to me an expert in geo politics, but I can't think of anything that would improve our national security then the above. Reducing our dependence on that region for oil seems the obvious way to "deal" with the problem (way easier said then done I realize...) of that region for us, and yet, it seems to only get lip service as a national goal.
DeltaSierra
01-28-12, 09:31
I agree that we should stop our historic policy of preventing Israel from achieving a decisive victory.
Yeah, seeing that the US gives them weapons like there is no tomorrow it has to be our fault that they haven't achieved a decisive victory....
Come on. They haven't achieved a decisive victory because no one in the past couple thousand years of history in the Middle East has achieved a decisive victory...
Yeah, seeing that the US gives them weapons like there is no tomorrow
Hey hey, they pay top dollar for those weapons. Oh wait, never mind...:shout:
I will say, seems one major issue being overlooked perhaps is, our policy toward Israel has been cold war oriented, that is, regional ally to offset the commies, launching point for military action if commie proxy states and or USSR decided to take over the oil, etc, etc.
Global approach was always about who had greater influence and who could block who from gaining that influence, the west or the commies. Involved in all manner of ugliness, some justified, some not, that was about keeping the commies at bay.
I think when framed as cold war global strategy, many of our actions (whether "right" or "wrong") was based on that goal, which no longer applies, at least not in the same dynamics as it did, but our policies have not kept up with a very different world then pre fall of "soviet menace."
Yeah, seeing that the US gives them weapons like there is no tomorrow it has to be our fault that they haven't achieved a decisive victory....
Come on. They haven't achieved a decisive victory because no one in the past couple thousand years of history in the Middle East has achieved a decisive victory...
Well then, I guess all those books I've read about the Six-Day and Yom Kipppur Wars were in error.
When I want lessons on cold war diplomatic history, I'll be sure to search for your posts.
Thanks for the correction!
montanadave
01-28-12, 10:46
There seems to be some confusion with regards to the Keystone XL pipeline. While I deplore the Obama administration's decision to cave to the environmentalist lobby on this issue by putting off the decision to approve the pipeline until after the election (and, yes, they will eventually approve it), the Keystone XL pipeline isn't going to bring down crude prices in the United States. If anything, when the Keystone XL pipeline project is complete, it will provide some relief to the current crude oil bottleneck which exists in Cushing, OK, thus allowing the U.S. benchmark crude (WTI) to equilibrate with the major European benchmark (Brent), currently trading at about a 10% premium.
Crude oil is the ultimate fungible commodity. By reducing our dependence on mid-east oil, we merely increase someone else's dependence. The oil will flow, regardless, and the price will be determined by worldwide supply and demand.
Will increasing U.S. imports from Canada provide a more secure source for a portion of our crude imports which is less susceptible to disruption by war, terrorism, etc.? Certainly. Are the Canadian producers going to sell us their oil at below market value? Not likely. We already import almost 2.4 million bbls/day (MBD) from Canada, which is a million barrels a day more than we get from the Saudis.
And let's not forget the U.S. is still the third largest oil producer in the world, pumping over 9 MBD (Russia and Saudi Arabia are numbers one and two, with just a shade under 10 MBD each). Our concerns about Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf in general have less to do with our supply of crude oil and more to do with how a disruption of crude oil from the region would impact global prices and economic growth.
There seems to be some confusion with regards to the Keystone XL pipeline. While I deplore the Obama administration's decision to cave to the environmentalist lobby on this issue by putting off the decision to approve the pipeline until after the election (and, yes, they will eventually approve it), the Keystone XL pipeline isn't going to bring down crude prices in the United States. If anything, when the Keystone XL pipeline project is complete, it will provide some relief to the current crude oil bottleneck which exists in Cushing, OK, thus allowing the U.S. benchmark crude (WTI) to equilibrate with the major European benchmark (Brent), currently trading at about a 10% premium.
Crude oil is the ultimate fungible commodity. By reducing our dependence on mid-east oil, we merely increase someone else's dependence. The oil will flow, regardless, and the price will be determined by worldwide supply and demand.
Will increasing U.S. imports from Canada provide a more secure source for a portion of our crude imports which is less susceptible to disruption by war, terrorism, etc.? Certainly. Are the Canadian producers going to sell us their oil at below market value? Not likely. We already import almost 2.4 million bbls/day (MBD) from Canada, which is a million barrels a day more than we get from the Saudis.
And let's not forget the U.S. is still the third largest oil producer in the world, pumping over 9 MBD (Russia and Saudi Arabia are numbers one and two, with just a shade under 10 MBD each). Our concerns about Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf in general have less to do with our supply of crude oil and more to do with how a disruption of crude oil from the region would impact global prices and economic growth.
Yep, something else everyone seems to either not know, or not remember is our refining capacity. This plays a MAJOR role in our gas prices and we don't have enough. We have not built enough of them and on top of that the EPA has shut down and regulated many out of business.
montanadave
01-28-12, 12:11
Yep, something else everyone seems to either not know, or not remember is our refining capacity. This plays a MAJOR role in our gas prices and we don't have enough. We have not built enough of them and on top of that the EPA has shut down and regulated many out of business.
I would agree that the refining capacity of the United States has, for a variety of reasons, not kept pace with demand (I believe the last "new" refinery was built in 1976). However, it should be noted that, while current U.S. refining capacity is lower today than at its peak in the early 1980s, the utilization of the capacity we do have is at all time highs and crude runs (the actual amount of crude oil being processed) has been trending upwards for the past twenty years. Improvements and expansions to existing U.S. refineries have resulted in much more efficient utilization of these facilities with increased production of refined products.
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5673/cruderuns.gif
We could use more, sure, but we're doing a pretty good job with what we have.
How? How is this false? Without betraying OPSEC I cant say very much. But all I know is that we've already had some SUPER close calls in some congested water ways with our persian friends. If Israel starts something, we are by far the easiest targets in the world as far as convenience of location.
Whats your proof? Where are you sitting right now?
That is my opinion. It was an answer to the other persons opinion. He feels that Iran would send "cadres" here to attack us. What is he basing that on? Opinion.
Personally i dont care if they close the straights of anything. Its their only leverage since they dont have the means to protect themselves.... Dont we threaten to do whatever it takes to protect OUR country? But its different, because they're the evil muslims that dont like Israel.
btw i'm sitting in a chair.
Personally i dont care if they close the straights of anything. Its their only leverage since they dont have the means to protect themselves.... Dont we threaten to do whatever it takes to protect OUR country? But its different, because they're the evil muslims that dont like Israel.
It's not different because their the evil muslims. It is different because they are not us. We act in what we feel is our best interest. To protect our interests. If they feel that their interests are not aligned with ours, they will act differently. And will suffer the consequences of whatever action they take. As will we.
It's not different because their the evil muslims. It is different because they are not us. We act in what we feel is our best interest. To protect our interests. If they feel that their interests are not aligned with ours, they will act differently. And will suffer the consequences of whatever action they take. As will we.
But the talking heads wont accept that WE are responsible for our actions. They crap they spew is..."they hate us because we're free, and have a christian based Government"....bullshit.
They hate us because we push them around and tell them what to do and when to do it. We stick our nose where it doesnt belong. But thats how Imperialsim/Globalism works.
But the talking heads wont accept that WE are responsible for our actions. They crap they spew is..."they hate us because we're free, and have a christian based Government"....bullshit.
It is not BS. It is true. It is not the only reason. But it is part of it.
They hate us because we push them around and tell them what to do and when to do it. We stick our nose where it doesnt belong. But thats how Imperialsim/Globalism works.
No. They hate us because their apparent interests are in conflict with our apparent interests. It does not help that their ideology is based on an extreme view of their religion which does not allow the co-existence f their religion and other religions. But it boils down to their interests and our interests, as we and they believe them to be, are in conflict.
Their interests are not any more important or valid than our interests. The "blame America" crowd does not understand that part. They think the Iranian interests trump the US interests.
We will have to endure the results and effects of our actions and so need to weigh the costs of action versus inaction. But that does not mean that our interests are any less valid than their interests. We just need to see if the cost is worth it in pressing our interests.
They also will have to endure the results and effects of their actions and to weigh the costs versus benefits as well.
This has nothing to do with "Globalism" or "Imperialism" in and of themselves.
a hypothetical example:
If man needed to east XYZ to live, and only in Iran did XYZ grow, and they were not willing to trade with us for XYZ, it would be in our interest to go take it from them.
Using the current nuclear showdown, so to speak, it is not in the interest of the US to have a nuclear armed Iran. This has nothing to do with threatening to blow up Israel. They may be rational or they may not be rational when it comes to Israel. But it changes the whole dynamic in the middle east and threatens the balance of powers there. Since the ME is a major source of petroleum for the world economy, the rest of the world has an interest to what goes on there and the balance of power there.
I personally think that while a nuclear Iran is a bad thing, it is also inevitable so we better start to adjust and prepare for it so that it can be controlled and contained. We cannot afford to militarily take out the Iranian nuclear program or to force "regime change" so we better start to prepare for and get ahead on the post-nuke-test Iran. Similar to global warming -- while I don't believe that human influence plays the major role in globally warming -- if it is happening we better plan for it instead of trying to stop it, since I don't believe that is possible or an effective strategy. Better plan for the inevitable instead of trying to stop it.
I also am partial to the ideology behind the "leave Iran alone" camp lead by RP. I think his implementation of it is a little off but the ideas behind it I am partial to.
Your entire post was Globalist bullshit.....
I'm done. You cant reason with the brainwashed.
Your entire post was Globalist bullshit.....
I'm done. You cant reason with the brainwashed.
That's right. That's why people like you and other RP fanbois are impossible to discuss with.
There was NOTHING "Globalist" at all about my post. It was pure "realism" as it describes reality, not some fantasy BS that RP fanbois are enamored with and brainwashed about.
Yours was the typical brainwashed RP fanbois non-answer. Since it doesn't fit my brainwashed preconceptions I will just give up and go home.
Moose-Knuckle
01-28-12, 17:00
I have a question: Why would we be be "after" Iran? Is there some resort property or commercial parking that they have? Is it their oil that we want? Outside of their nuclear ambitions as a state sponsor of terrorism, I'm just not seeing Iran as some special itch that must be scratched.
That's the trillion dollar question isn't?
glocktogo, went into some depth on the substance of your query.
You could also read Brzezinski's "The Grand Chess Board" to get some further in depth information on Iran's geostrategical importance.
Here, General Wesley Clark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4F52p5fWa8) explains a brief he read ten days after 9/11 detailing US military action (in order) in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and then IRAN. If you don't want to watch the entire ten minute vid then the part I mention begins at minute 6:50 till 6:58.
That's the trillion dollar question isn't?
glocktogo, went into some depth on the substance of your query.
You could also read Brzezinski's "The Grand Chess Board" to get some further in depth information on Iran's geostrategical importance.
Here, General Wesley Clark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4F52p5fWa8) explains a brief he read ten days after 9/11 detailing US military action (in order) in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and then IRAN. If you don't want to watch the entire ten minute vid then the part I mention begins at minute 6:50 till 6:58.
I was beginning to think no one bothered to read it. Sadly, I don't think the poster above you did.
I agree with some of what Gen. Clark said, but we need to keep in mind that he is a Democratic politician stumping for his party in this video. We need someone in the oval office with real geopolitical capacity and in-depth knowledge of the region's history. Obama doesn't have it, but unfortunately neither does most of the GOP field. I'm afraid we're entering a very dangerous period in history, and the captains are too busy wining and dining to know where the reefs are. :(
DeltaSierra
01-28-12, 21:59
I was beginning to think no one bothered to read it. Sadly, I don't think the poster above you did.
I think that your post was the best thought out, and most factually-based post I have read online since Rob's M4 Chart....:D
I think that your post was the best thought out, and most factually-based post I have read online since Rob's M4 Chart....:D
Hey, let's not get crazy here! :D
Moose-Knuckle
01-29-12, 03:25
I agree with some of what Gen. Clark said, but we need to keep in mind that he is a Democratic politician stumping for his party in this video. We need someone in the oval office with real geopolitical capacity and in-depth knowledge of the region's history. Obama doesn't have it, but unfortunately neither does most of the GOP field. I'm afraid we're entering a very dangerous period in history, and the captains are too busy wining and dining to know where the reefs are. :(
Under Bush (Rep.) we went into Iraq under the guise of GWOT, under Obama (Dem.) were having secret little wars in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran. Both parties are involved with the realigning of the Middle East. In '06 Gen. Clark probably didn't see the bigger picture, I'd give a penny for his thoughts now that were in '12 and Obama has had four years of getting us involved in the other nations he read in that brief.
I do not buy into the political rhetoric, both parties work in unison while playing to their respective members.
I was beginning to think no one bothered to read it. Sadly, I don't think the poster above you did.
I agree with some of what Gen. Clark said, but we need to keep in mind that he is a Democratic politician stumping for his party in this video. We need someone in the oval office with real geopolitical capacity and in-depth knowledge of the region's history. Obama doesn't have it, but unfortunately neither does most of the GOP field. I'm afraid we're entering a very dangerous period in history, and the captains are too busy wining and dining to know where the reefs are. :(
I read it as well, but I have had limited time for posting due to family concerns. It was an excellent historical overview and an interesting perspective on Iran's behavior. However, I'm not look for a justification of Iran's behavior or their interest in nuclear weapons. Instead, I want a concise explanation of the globalist interest in Iran if you consider it to be something other than WMD or state-sponsored terrorism.
Under Bush (Rep.) we went into Iraq under the guise of GWOT, under Obama (Dem.) were having secret little wars in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran...
This is an important statement because it illustrates our differences. I would not consider our involvement in Libya, Sudan, or Somalia as little wars (I'm not aware of any US military involvement in Syria or Iran). While I do not agree with our involvement in Libya, I have no problem with clandestine strikes at AQ targets in Somalia or Sudan. Nor do I consider our actions in these countries to be empire building.
Moose-Knuckle
01-29-12, 04:41
This is an important statement because it illustrates our differences. I would not consider our involvement in Libya, Sudan, or Somalia as little wars (I'm not aware of any US military involvement in Syria or Iran).
We were not in Laos and Cambodia either.
The CIA has been involved in Iran since '53 and recently lost a very sensitive Northrop Grumman RQ-170 there. Our meddling in Syria is the same as the other "Arab Spring" uprisings.
While I do not agree with our involvement in Libya, I have no problem with clandestine strikes at AQ targets in Somalia or Sudan. Nor do I consider our actions in these countries to be empire building.
AQ, well at least that's what they tell us. I don't believe the US is into empire building at all, it's globalism.
AQ, well at least that's what they tell us. I don't believe the US is into empire building at all, it's globalism.
For ****s sake when are we going to turn Somalia into a USN missile test range?
I'm having a hard time seeing these two sentences (the latter being your post from another thread) as being internally consistent.
Moose-Knuckle
01-30-12, 00:24
I'm having a hard time seeing these two sentences (the latter being your post from another thread) as being internally consistent.
Regarding Somalia I think the great philosopher and Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi said it best, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy".
Yes, bomb the **** out of Somalia. Don't send more of our best and brightest to their deaths in another third world shit hole that doesn't matter to everyday ordinary Americans. Have you ever read BHD, In the Company of Heros, or The Battle of Mogadishu? News flash, the "people" of Somalia do not want peace, love, and democracy. Why continue to loose vessels and their crews to pirates, not AQ? Why keep having JSOC warriors raiding the nation and having to save captives from organized criminal gangs? Be proactive for once and do something to benefit the nation, its citizenry, its warriors and not some globalist agenda. Eliminate a geographical location that has done nothing but prove it’s self to be the Earth's sump pit.
Regarding Somalia I think the great philosopher and Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi said it best, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy".
Yes, bomb the **** out of Somalia. Don't send more of our best and brightest to their deaths in another third world shit hole that doesn't matter to everyday ordinary Americans. Have you ever read BHD, In the Company of Heros, or The Battle of Mogadishu? News flash, the "people" of Somalia do not want peace, love, and democracy. Why continue to loose vessels and their crews to pirates, not AQ? Why keep having JSOC warriors raiding the nation and having to save captives from organized criminal gangs? Be proactive for once and do something to benefit the nation, its citizenry, its warriors and not some globalist agenda. Eliminate a geographical location that has done nothing but prove it’s self to be the Earth's sump pit.
Most of Somalia's 10 million people live day-to-day looking for their next meal. The percentage of the population participating in piracy or militant Islam directed at foreign nations is such a small fraction that it cannot be measured. I would no more support the mass murder of Somalis to solve the piracy problem than I would the mass murder of Iranians to quell their nuclear ambitions. Nor would I support any type of conventional peace keeping force in any N. African or ME country to prop up a "democratic government" like we do in Iraq and A-Stan. We gave the Bush Doctrine a fair chance over the last decade - most of us can agree that the returns were not worth the investment.
On the other hand, I do not favor an abdication of our national security in the region due to historical or current mistakes. In both countries, I favor clandestine efforts to affect our national security. This means working with friendly aspects of the local government and neighbors whenever possible, and limited use of force only as a last resort.
DeltaSierra
01-30-12, 07:56
I wonder....
Maybe I shouldn't do this, but let me ask what motivates these Somali pirates, to risk their lives in small boats on the open ocean...
First, they are starving. Of course, when you are starving, you aren't going to care where your food comes from...
Second, there are several shipping companies that dump waste products off the coast of Somalia, poisoning fish (which, by the way, is the way that many of these "pirates" earned their living before the fish were killed...)
Here is a brilliant thought, stop dumping toxic wastes off their coast, and stop sailing within their national waters (I know, they don't have a functioning government, but for the sake of argument, lets leave their "nation" alone.) Then any attack on shipping can be dealt with, without any real blowback.
Moose-Knuckle,
Don't you think you are advocating the disproportionate use of force for a few pirates? Come on. A few guys in 20 foot boats is no reason to bomb a country back into... (oh, wait...they already are in the stone age...
I read it as well, but I have had limited time for posting due to family concerns. It was an excellent historical overview and an interesting perspective on Iran's behavior. However, I'm not look for a justification of Iran's behavior or their interest in nuclear weapons. Instead, I want a concise explanation of the globalist interest in Iran if you consider it to be something other than WMD or state-sponsored terrorism.
I think my post was more relevant to the our behavior than Iran's. We're the big boys on the block now and we wouldn't be complete as an empire if we didn't diddle with the middle east. We have this fixation with "fixing" things that don't need our fixing or interference. Those are our reasons, the terrorism and WMD's are merely justifications.
They will ALWAYS be at war over there in some form or fashion. Us meddling in their affairs will neither help nor prevent that.
They will ALWAYS be at war over there in some form or fashion. Us meddling in their affairs will neither help nor prevent that.
Sounds about right.
variablebinary
01-31-12, 05:27
I wonder....
Maybe I shouldn't do this, but let me ask what motivates these Somali pirates, to risk their lives in small boats on the open ocean...
First, they are starving. Of course, when you are starving, you aren't going to care where your food comes from...
Second, there are several shipping companies that dump waste products off the coast of Somalia, poisoning fish (which, by the way, is the way that many of these "pirates" earned their living before the fish were killed...)
Here is a brilliant thought, stop dumping toxic wastes off their coast, and stop sailing within their national waters (I know, they don't have a functioning government, but for the sake of argument, lets leave their "nation" alone.) Then any attack on shipping can be dealt with, without any real blowback.
Europeans have a long sordid history with Africa, much of which is rooted in meddling and colonialism.
As jacked up as Africa is, no one wants to be subjugated, ruled, and manipulated or exploited by an outside power. It always results in inevitable blowback.
There is this great line "Gladiator".
Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?
And, I don't think it's out of order to ask what motivates anyone or anything. It's not justifying or empathizing by any means.
DeltaSierra
01-31-12, 07:06
And, I don't think it's out of order to ask what motivates anyone or anything. It's not justifying or empathizing by any means.
Excellent post.
:)
DeltaSierra
01-31-12, 07:21
And, I don't think it's out of order to ask what motivates anyone or anything. It's not justifying or empathizing by any means.
Excellent post.
:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.