|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 19, 2008 8:47:46 GMT -5
Only the beginning. =========================================================================== Sat, July 19, 2008
New war looms in Mideast
By SALIM MANSURAt the outset of his richly detailed history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides, writing 25 centuries ago, warned, "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." In this account of the Greek city-states at war, Thucydides -- the greatest historian of the ancient world, perhaps of all time -- unlocked the central reality of international politics. International politics, unlike domestic politics, occur in an environment where actors --sovereign states -- recognize no higher authority in securing their independence and interests. It is a raw contest for power and struggle for survival. This unpalatable reality is willfully masked by the routine lip service paid to such ideas as international law, the role of the UN, or the utopian notion of one world government as the means for abolishing war and transcending international politics. But these ideas are as fanciful as wishing away gravity to fly like the imaginary Peter Pan. The recent display by Iran, testing ballistic missiles that would place southern Europe, Israel and the U.S. presence in the Middle East within striking distance, gives the world notice once again of another unavoidable war looming in the region. Iran's nuclear ambition rolls forward undeterred since its secret facilities at Arak and Natanz were revealed in 2002. Despite attempts to bring these facilities -- heavy water reactors and uranium enrichment plants -- under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) control, with the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) offering economic benefits and civilian nuclear technology to Iran as incentives for permanently halting activities, Tehran remains adamant in acquiring nuclear capability of its own. Since 2006 the Security Council has voted several resolutions under UN Chapter 7 demanding Iran submit to the IAEA requirements. The most recent of these is Resolution 1803 of March 3, 2008, requiring Iran meet its international obligations. Security Council resolutions, however, are toothless unless enforced. The cleric-based Iranian regime knows this, and has guessed the Security Council members, including the United States, likely will not authorize force to stop Iran's nuclear activities. This leaves Israel alone confronting Iran, which is ruled by men who do not cloak their anti-Semitic bigotry. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran never misses an opportunity to broadcast support for "wiping out" the Jewish state. There should be outrage at the UN that one of its member states openly espouses the intent of seeing another member state annihilated. The absence of such outrage is more evidence of how bereft the organization is of ethics and history, and of how little help in preventing war or, if the Iranian regime could get away with it, another Holocaust. The world was warned in June 1981 when Israeli jets took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, and again in September 2007 when they bombed a Syrian nuclear site under construction with North Korean assistance. ISRAELIS WILL STRIKEThe international failure in checking Iran's nuclear ambition will compel Israel to strike pre-emptively. This will be the result of abandoning Israel in the face of spiralling nuclear threat from a regime that is public in declaring its enmity against the Jewish state. But such an Israeli pre-emption likely will unleash a dynamic of unpredictable consequences through a wider war and terrorism for the global economy dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Thucydides would not be surprised, nor should we if we learned from him. The Link |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 19, 2008 9:47:51 GMT -5
...I don't know what to think anymore. While it appears, at the surface, like an unavoidable path to war that could get really ugly, real fast, on the other hand, the Middle East appears on a constant path to war since decades where only the actor's name change and the villains of yesterday are the good guys of todays and vice-versa...
I'm looking at this through my born and raised occidental eyes and quite frankly must admit that, like most occidentals, I have very little hope of ever truly understanding and grasping the society/religious clashes happening in the Middle-East and exactly how and when we should intervene. Most of the time, outside military interventions there serve to upset a fragile balance and bears very little positive results on the whole situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 19, 2008 11:37:00 GMT -5
If find this to be a pretty outrageous suggestion. I don't see how a serious journalist can say something like that as an afterthought and without any significant justification. Contrary to what the media and Bush administration would have you believe, the Iranian leadership is not a bunch of maniacs, and it's hard to imagine them actually using a nuclear weapon given what would happen to them if they did. If they want a deterrent against unilateral invasion and bullying, I can't blame them for it. If there is a war with Iran, it will be because the Western public allowed themselves to be frightened by irresponsible journalism, once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 19, 2008 12:52:40 GMT -5
If I'm a big-gun-totin' guy that minds his own p's and q's why the hell should I care if my neighbour down the road finally gets himself a (much smaller) gun too? Especially if they've never threatened to point it at me whenever they did acquire one, moreover, if there doesn't exist any evidence that they ever would?
Isn't the "military" supposed to be used for DEFENCE? If that region wants to tear each other apart, have at it. Our TRILLIONS are better spent elsewhere.
Once again, what a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 19, 2008 16:11:11 GMT -5
If find this to be a pretty outrageous suggestion. I don't see how a serious journalist can say something like that as an afterthought and without any significant justification. Contrary to what the media and Bush administration would have you believe, the Iranian leadership is not a bunch of maniacs, and it's hard to imagine them actually using a nuclear weapon given what would happen to them if they did. If they want a deterrent against unilateral invasion and bullying, I can't blame them for it. If there is a war with Iran, it will be because the Western public allowed themselves to be frightened by irresponsible journalism, once again. Cool, let's be apologist for stoners, beaters, murderers and intenders of genocide. No, Iranian leadership are not meniacs, not at all and THESE people are not really hanging or beaten for being gay.....and HOW DARE irresponsible journalism let these pictures out.     And as for woman, only stones are good enough for them.....  And this is not really burqa police....  And this woman wasn't really murdered.....  And this is not really a meeting in Iran to deny the Holocaust....but hey, if you can deny the holocaust, it's that much easier to to repeat it. That cool and sexy Iranian regime, what will they think off next!  AND THIS IS NOT A THREAT.....just another day in the office for those cool and sexy Iranian leadership..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0QAnd if the Iranian leadership are stoning, beating, hanging, denying history and advocating genocide it's because.......... George Bush made them do it. Or maybe the Jews made them do it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 19, 2008 16:49:49 GMT -5
I think that I used up a hundred cyber trees saying the same thing. Israel is so small, that even two nukes will wipe it off the map. Israel can not and should not give any quarter to those who explicitly and repeatedly DECLARE that they are going to wipe them off the face of the earth. Better for them to destroy the facilities and absorb whatever the Iranian regime throw at them then let the Iranian regime acquire weapons of genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 19, 2008 17:02:03 GMT -5
If there is a war with Iran, it will be because the Western public allowed themselves to be frightened by irresponsible journalism, once again. I don't know MCH. We're privy to irresponsible reporting/journalism quite a lot, but I think Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is his own worst enemy. He's said on several occasions that the state of Israel should be annihilated from the world map. Check out Glenn Beck interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu when you have the time buds. The threat to Israel is a tad more than sabre rattling. This guy honestly believes the holocaust never happened and that the best way to end the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. Makes me a tad concerned, man. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2008 20:09:29 GMT -5
No comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 19, 2008 22:22:12 GMT -5
If there is a war with Iran, it will be because the Western public allowed themselves to be frightened by irresponsible journalism, once again. I don't know MCH. We're privy to irresponsible reporting/journalism quite a lot, but I think Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is his own worst enemy. He's said on several occasions that the state of Israel should be annihilated from the world map. Check out Glenn Beck interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu when you have the time buds. The threat to Israel is a tad more than sabre rattling. A few things about the famous "Israel should be wiped off the map" comment: -it was mistranslated; it was actually a call for "regime change" in Israel, not for annihilation of the country -it was a quotation Ahmadinejad was commenting on, not even his own words -some in the media have deliberately concealed this and related information to make the Iranian threat look scarier Ahmadinejad is, shall we say, a "free spirit," but his power is limited. You might be right about him being his own worst enemy; he could certainly be more diplomatic in his comments. But, he might feel it's to his advantage to play the character he does. Maybe he hopes to scare people enough to get them to pay attention but not enough to actually bring about an attack. As for Glenn Beck, I'm afraid I can't watch him for more than 30 seconds without becoming physically ill.   I don't know what he believes, to be honest, but in that article again he is only talking about changing the Israeli regime (regime change being something that lots of world leaders talk about in other countries), not about nuking the country. And again there is the reference to "previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map," a phrase he has never uttered, which calls into serious question the integrity of the article (not to mention the sensationalist and misleading headline the Post slapped on it). As far as regime change in Israel goes, he's not entirely wrong: an Israeli government that was more interested in peace would probably help the situation. I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to Iran, but it would be nice if the media would report on it honestly instead of spreading misinformation and fear because it makes it hard to even form an opinion when you can't trust anything you read. |
|
|
|
Post by oldhabsfan on Jul 19, 2008 23:49:06 GMT -5
Regarding Israel's vulnerability, Israel acquired submarine-launched missiles for a reason.
There seems to be a nasty symbiosis between the the extremists and expansionists in Israel, and the American exponents of "the project for a new American century."
Other regimes besides the one now in control of Iran have shown themselves capable of cynical deception and manipulation of their own people, torture and mass murder. The one in control of the United States, for example.
If the rulers of Israel and the United States really want peace, they might start by ceasing to hammer the government and the people of Iran together. Take the pressure off for a few years and I think the Iranians could take care of the theocrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 20, 2008 0:26:31 GMT -5
Regarding Israel's vulnerability, Israel acquired submarine-launched missiles for a reason. Which means what to a postage size country can be wiped off the face of the earth with a nuke or two? Or is it the fallacy of mutual assured destruction from a country run by mullahs that sent in their soldiers to use up Iraqi bullets? A MILLION dead and TWO MILLION wounded Iranians tells us all we need to know about mullahs value of human life. If the rulers of Israel and the United States really want peace, they might start by ceasing to hammer the government and the people of Iran together. Take the pressure off for a few years and I think the Iranians could take care of the theocrats. Which means that you really don't understand how ingrained and in control the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard are in Iran. Other regimes besides the one now in control of Iran have shown themselves capable of cynical deception and manipulation of their own people, torture and mass murder. The one in control of the United States, for example. Mass murder? Like the one by the US? Wow, another sad comment.....but hey, it's the Canadian brand of hatred and it's acceptable as long as it's directed at Americans. Let's see.....we have Americans who believe Canadians are left wing whinning cowards....and Canadians who throw around words like mass-murder like it was candy. Wonderfull..... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2008 10:01:06 GMT -5
I don't know MCH. We're privy to irresponsible reporting/journalism quite a lot, but I think Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is his own worst enemy. He's said on several occasions that the state of Israel should be annihilated from the world map. Check out Glenn Beck interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu when you have the time buds. The threat to Israel is a tad more than sabre rattling. A few things about the famous "Israel should be wiped off the map" comment: -it was mistranslated; it was actually a call for "regime change" in Israel, not for annihilation of the country -it was a quotation Ahmadinejad was commenting on, not even his own words -some in the media have deliberately concealed this and related information to make the Iranian threat look scarier Ahmadinejad is, shall we say, a "free spirit," but his power is limited. You might be right about him being his own worst enemy; he could certainly be more diplomatic in his comments. But, he might feel it's to his advantage to play the character he does. Maybe he hopes to scare people enough to get them to pay attention but not enough to actually bring about an attack. As for Glenn Beck, I'm afraid I can't watch him for more than 30 seconds without becoming physically ill. I don't know what he believes, to be honest, but in that article again he is only talking about changing the Israeli regime (regime change being something that lots of world leaders talk about in other countries), not about nuking the country. And again there is the reference to "previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map," a phrase he has never uttered, which calls into serious question the integrity of the article (not to mention the sensationalist and misleading headline the Post slapped on it). As far as regime change in Israel goes, he's not entirely wrong: an Israeli government that was more interested in peace would probably help the situation. I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to Iran, but it would be nice if the media would report on it honestly instead of spreading misinformation and fear because it makes it hard to even form an opinion when you can't trust anything you read. Good gosh man! Are you saying we have a political misunderstanding? ;D Here's a You Tube vid that explains where Ahmadinejad. He refers to the "regime" in Israel again, but in a different context. Check out Death to Israel when you have time. Yet at the same time, Ahmadinejad claims to "love all peoples" while dancing around the question, "Do you want the destruction of Israel?" I'll give the guy credit though; while he does dance around questions regarding the removing of Israel, he doesn't back down from Western media interviews. Here's an interview with Mike Wallace on You Tube. I feel rather good being able to live in a society that allows dialog like this. It's actually a good exchange. Newnight Part 5I'm not so sure Ahmadinejad's society allows for the same freedom of speech, though. As far as war occurring in the region, I think Bush singled out Iran in his "Axis of Evil" speech back in 2001. Yet, I'm not so sure the American public will support another war, or if their economy can sustain it. There's a hell of a strain on the national debt right now. I think if Iran even gets close to producing weapons-grade materials, the Israelis will take it out like they did with Syria and Iraq. They have a right to survive, even if they don't give back Jerusalem  Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 20, 2008 14:16:01 GMT -5
I'm not and never will buy into the "American Cavalry", "America to The Rescue" spin. There are certainly those entities with genuine agendas, but ultimately and as far as I'm concerned, the "root of all evil" is the driving force behind this frickin' mess. God Bless America(ns), certainly, but those ExtraLOVEers in Washington can (and will) go straight to hell.
Again, if the Middle East wants to turn their region to glass, have at it...we've got our own weeds to pull...boy, do we ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 20, 2008 15:38:06 GMT -5
I don't know MCH. We're privy to irresponsible reporting/journalism quite a lot, but I think Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is his own worst enemy. He's said on several occasions that the state of Israel should be annihilated from the world map. Check out Glenn Beck interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu when you have the time buds. The threat to Israel is a tad more than sabre rattling. A few things about the famous "Israel should be wiped off the map" comment: -it was mistranslated; it was actually a call for "regime change" in Israel, not for annihilation of the country -it was a quotation Ahmadinejad was commenting on, not even his own words -some in the media have deliberately concealed this and related information to make the Iranian threat look scarier Ahmadinejad is, shall we say, a "free spirit," but his power is limited. You might be right about him being his own worst enemy; he could certainly be more diplomatic in his comments. But, he might feel it's to his advantage to play the character he does. Maybe he hopes to scare people enough to get them to pay attention but not enough to actually bring about an attack. As for Glenn Beck, I'm afraid I can't watch him for more than 30 seconds without becoming physically ill. Ok ... Ahmadinejad was misquoted and he loves Israel..... so now tell me what he really meant when he said the Holocaust never happened? As would regime changes in Syria, Palestine, and Iran, that were more interested in peace.... you seem to imply its all Israel's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 20, 2008 17:24:45 GMT -5
...there's a difference between saying Israel is not blameless and saying it is *all* their fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Aug 15, 2008 21:26:43 GMT -5
Ramped up....fact or fiction?
SPECIAL REPORT: Kuwait Readying for War in Gulf?
By CLAUDE SALHANI (Editor, Middle East Times)Published: August 11, 2008
NUCLEAR ARMADA ON ITS WAY TO IRAN -- Leading the U.S. and British naval battle groups, and a French hunter-killer submarine, headed for the Gulf is the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (shown here) with its 80-plus combat planes.
The small oil-rich emirate of Kuwait – situated between Iraq, Iran and an un-enviable geographic hard place on the northern end of the Persian Gulf – has reportedly activated its "Emergency War Plan" as a massive U.S. and European armada is reported heading for the region.
Coming on the heels of Operation Brimstone just a week ago that saw U.S., British and French naval forces participate in war games in the Atlantic Ocean, the object of which was to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran, the joint task force is now headed for the Gulf and what could easily turn into a major confrontation with Iran.
The naval force comprises a U.S. Navy super carrier battle group and is accompanied by an expeditionary carrier battle group, a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.
Leading the pack is the nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two; besides its 80-plus combat planes the Roosevelt normally transports, it is carrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, currently in dry dock.
Also reported heading toward Iran is another nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan and its Carrier Strike Group Seven; the USS Iwo Jima, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and a number of French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste.
Once the naval force arrives in the Gulf region it will be joining two other U.S. naval battle groups already on site: the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu; the Lincoln with its carrier strike group and the latter with an expeditionary strike group.
Telephone calls to the Pentagon were not returned by publication time.
This deployment is the largest naval task force from the United States and allied countries to assemble in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf since the two Gulf wars.
The object of the naval deployment would be to enforce an eventual blockade on Iran, if as expected by many observers, current negotiations with the Islamic republic over its insistence to pursue enrichment of uranium, allowing it, eventually, to produce nuclear weapons yields no results.
Adding to the volatility is the presence of a major Russian navy deployment affected earlier this year to the eastern Mediterranean comprising the jewel of the Russian fleet, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov with approximately 50 Su-33 warplanes that have the capacity for mid-air refueling. This means the Russian warplanes could reach the Gulf from the Mediterranean, a distance of some 850 miles and would be forced to fly over Syria (not a problem) but Iraq as well, where the skies are controlled by the U.S. military, and the guided missile heavy cruiser Moskva. The Russian task force is believed to be composed of no less than a dozen warships as well as several submarines.
However, Russia is unlikely to get involved in a military showdown in the Persian Gulf, particularly at this time when it is engaged in a major confrontation with the Republic of Georgia in South Ossetia.
For Iran however, a naval blockade preventing it from importing refined oil would have devastating effects on its economy, virtually crippling the Islamic republic's infrastructure. Although Iran is a major oil producer and exporter, the country lacks refining facilities having to re-import its own oil once refined.
Iran's oil – both the exported crude as well as the returning refined product – passes through the strategic Straits of Hormuz, controlled by Iran on one side and the Sultanate of Oman – a U.S. ally – on the other. The strait is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest point, making it easy to control, but at the same time placing Western naval vessels within easy reach of Iran's Revolutionary Guards fast moving light crafts that could be used by Iranian suicide bombers.
Although Kuwait is on the opposite end of the entrance to the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, Kuwait City is less than 60 miles from Iran – and with good reason to worry.
"Kuwait was caught by surprise last time, when Iraqi troops invaded the small emirate and routed the Kuwaiti army in just a few hours," a former U.S. diplomat to Kuwait told the Middle East Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 15, 2008 22:23:10 GMT -5
Ramped up....fact or fiction? Recently, Khaddafi warned Iranian mullahs that any military confrontation with the West will leave it totally defeated and humiliated. But the mullahs are not listening. The mirror on the wall has them convinced. Then we have Georgia. The "why now" and "what where they thinking!" will soon become apparent. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 16, 2008 23:59:46 GMT -5
Putin was guilty of invading Georgia, but the judge in Quebec ruled "not allowing him to attend the prom is cruel and unusual punishment."
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Aug 19, 2008 16:53:12 GMT -5
I think thoughts of war are very premature, imo. It's merely sabre rattling by the West. The reality is that Iran is just as dependent on the Straits of Hormuz as are the rest of the Gulf States. If anything, Iran closing the Straits would likely mean a regime change in Tehran without Israel, the West and the moderate Arabs states lifting a finger.
It's worth remembering that an overwhelming percentage of Iran's export revenue and perhaps half its national budget comes from petroleum. However, it has to import over half of its gasoline at the current world market price through seas controlled by those same Straits due to insufficient refining capability. In turn, this imported gasoline along with local refined production is heavily subsidized to make it affordable to the average Iranian. That's a huge opportunity cost since Iran could be selling all that oil at market price. Instead, Iran runs a current account deficit to pay for this subsidy every year despite record oil prices. Ironically, the higher the price of oil, the worse this deficit becomes. So why should Iran act in a way that will raise that price?
Iran, imo, will not risk destruction of its existing refining capability nor will it jeopardize gasoline imports in any way for now. If anything, the threat of a conflict, blockade or sanctions will accelerate its nuclear program. The mullahs are acutely aware that they will have no choice economically and politically to do so.
It's clear in my mind that the U.S. is trying to do to Iran what it did to the Soviet Union i.e. economic exhaustion of your opponent, political isolation and containment through proxies, and encouraging regime change from within using a carrot and stick method. Sending aircraft carriers and imposing economic sanctions resulting in a high price for oil and forcing Iran into huge expenditures in ever shrinking capital to pay higher subsidies on gasoline, fund a nuclear program, or buy more expensive weapons systems that likely won't be used is pretty effective. It should be noted that neither of these areas generate substantial economic return for the Iranians. The weapons are imported from Russia or China and, after pouring billions into their nuclear program, they still haven't generated a single watt of electricity or made a single bomb. Then there's Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah to pay for...
|
|
