Jump to content

Iran: A War Is Coming


Recommended Posts

Thanks for reading to my internet forum opinion which won't make any difference.


I seem to remember this is a regular simon theme: what we say is irrelevent. I'm not certain I agree with him. Of course any individual post is irrelevent, or maybe a better word is insignificant, and probably every post on this entire forum is insignificant in influencing policy on an issue as complicated as Iraq - though it probably does have some effects on Tynwald debating lollipopmen.


But our arguing and debating does reflect opinion, and polititians are aware of public opinion, so the idea that we are an irrelevence seems over harsh. People expressing a mass opinion do make a difference.


I suppose some people will say that millions opposed the Iraq war but Bush and Blair just ignored them - I think that's only partly true. Opinion on the war was split; at both the popular and policy making level. The UK and US parliaments voted in favour of the war - many people (including me) were not against taking action against Sadam - I, and almost everyone else (even Rumsfeld?), do object to how this policy aim was implemented, but that's a more complicated issue.


There was definitely not a unitary voice against attacking Iraq. I suppose there isn't a unitary voice against attacking Iran - various right wing nuts and messianic zionist groups are all for it. And some serious people working in serious policy institutes do weigh up the risks and rewards of attacking Iran and some do say it is possible to do the maths to say it may be worthwhile.


But at the moment that maths is very far from clear; and there is not even a consensus even amongst Crozza's usual suspects - who are nowhere near as influential as they once were.


Of course there is the a more complex issue - popular opinion verses the opinion of the policy makers. Crozza characterizes the policy makers as sinister elements who do what they do no matter what popular opinion is. That is, for me, too far. He also seems to say they make their policies in a vacum - that also smells to my mind.


Influential think tanks, magazines exist: they create a dialectic through their opinions and debates. These debates maybe a long way from what Joe Public thinks, but the debate is there and discernable. The policy makers know that doing things Joe Public disagrees with isn't really a problem - as long as he does agree with the final outcome. But the final outcome on attacking Iran even with "just" a few precision strikes is very unclear. The neo-cons had created a panglossian world where Iraqi's would line the streets cheering the troops on. CNN was amazed and delighted to screen to the world the pictures when it looked like it was occurring - and then reality intervened. There are very few panglossian neocons out there who say attacking Iran would easily and immediately solve the problems of nuclear proliferation and state sponsored terrorism.


Quite the opposite. Even people like Netanyahu say attacking Iran is only worthwhile because if Iran gets the bomb the consequence will be the distruction of Israel so taking even massive consequences will be worthwhile - a very flawed argument in my mind.


America is pretty cowed and the situation in the Middle East is massively complex - at a regional level the basic power structure has been totally upturned - to the point as John Wright has posted an Israeli-Saudi alliance against Iran is not longer incomprehensible - while geopolitically America's loss of its dominant status, due to its own incompetence and the rising/recovery of Russia and China, adds a further level of complexity.


I'd be amazed if either an Israeli-Saudi alliance emerges, or an attack on Iran, but both are concievable - the fact these absoultely diametrical alternatives are possible shows how uncertain the situation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember this is a regular simon theme: what we say is irrelevent.


It's not a regular theme of mine; that what we say is irrelevant.


many people (including me) were not against taking action against Sadam - I, and almost everyone else (even Rumsfeld?), do object to how this policy aim was implemented, but that's a more complicated issue.


That's revisionist; when those responsible for the policy and its implementation begin to blame the implementation of the policy for the failure of the policy.


(Whatever the policy was. Whatever the aims were.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be so selective. I think the British government can be just as evil as that of the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Britain hardly has a great record in foreign policy. Suez 1956 was a huge blunder; the ethnic cleansing in Diego Garcia is a crime; Kosovo was a mistake as that only made things worse; the Malayan counter-insurgency was brutal; Afghanistan and Iraq were stupid. And then there are all the arms deals and close ties with oppressive countries such as Uzbekistan and Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What with an election looming next year in the US of course there is going to be another conflict...theres just not enough footage on CNN these days of shit blowing up. IEDs are no use as the cameras cant be there beforehand.


I mean it would be a waste to have all that ordinance down that way already.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

six months before the latest Iraq war the Iraqi government started selling its oil in euros as opposed to dollars the first thing the Americans did when they got to the Iraqi oil ministry was to change it back to dollars and to wipe out all euro profits in to the petro dollar which OPEC trades in and what keeps the us economy stable


now to hear of a possible invasion of Iran with dubious reasons (weapons of mass destruction or what ever)

who also this year are starting to trade there oil in euros this year if not already

sound familiar :(:(:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other factors that should to be taken account. If was to Iran become a nuclear power Israel would have to (finally) declare itself as a nuclear state with the following consequences:


Israel would be pressured to sign the NPT - Something they have refused and have frequently breached in the past:

Apartheid South Africa - The Pretoria Bomb (what ever did happen to those bombs??)

India - Provoking the Pakistan/India nuclear arm race

China - who provided the same technical help the North Korean's!


Israel would have to open up its nuclear facilities to the UN (along with its WMD's facilities such as Zia Nova (Noiva) etc


Israel would lose its strategic bargaining (read blackmail) chip


The US may even have to look for a different strategic partner in the Middle East.. thus cutting vital military funding.


Now we begin to see where the pressure is being applied.


What is it we're told "If Iran acquires nuclear weapons they will wipe Israel off the map" What?? Have the Palestinians etc suddenly become immune to the effects radioactivity?? If you wipe the Israeli's off the map you also wipe the Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians & Lebanese off the map too!


Utter nonsense don't believe the propaganda

Edited by magneto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think allrightyessa's post was pointing to the idea of the Iranian's 'Oil Bourse' in Euros - this could be seen as a 'swipe' against the US - indeedy!


I do believe this is what has caused the pissy pants attitude towards them from the US, if the rest of the world started using Euros or another currency for oil trade, instead of the dollar, the US would sink overnight (probably not without a huge shitfight from the US before though).


Interesting article I found on the Beeb Radio4 site ealier regarding the alleged intervention of Iran in the troubles in Iraq:- here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres one thing that winds me up about all this.


The septics are whinging cus Iran is funding/supplying terrorists to kill the yanks in iraq. But what about what the CIA have been upto for about 50 years. A pile of civil wars across the world has had some influence from the CIA. They fund, supply, train terrorists and militants everywhere to disrupt and kill just cus the White house doesnt think whichever government is in charge is being friendly to the USA.

How many russians died in the afghan war cus of the CIA/yanks (and british for that matter) involvement in training/supplying and funding the mujghadeen (cant be arsed spelling it)


does my nut in either do it yourself and take it when u get it back or dont do it at all.


*now goes into hiding from the FBI. :ph34r: *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only terroristic mischief if a rouge nation or state does it. If they are under the control or influence of the Anglo-American Establishment then it's ok to rape, murder, lie and steal.


The US and others were fine with the Taliban and their evil ways while the deal for the UNOCAL pipeline was being arranged, but as soon as that deal became impossible under the Taliban they had to be removed. 9/11 and bin Laden provided the excuse they needed to go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban. No matter how you believe 9/11 happened, you can't deny that fact. Their priority was never to get bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Economic & energy interests were first on the list.


The 'war on terrorism' is a manufactured fairy tale to keep the masses in a state fear and to keep them from understand the real geo-political reasons for the attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and now possibly Iran. They couldn't give two shits about the Iranian people or anybody else for that matter. They want control of the vital resources in the Middle East to prevent Russia & China + others from challenging US global dominance.


You are right. They know exactly where Al Qaeda are and Bin Laden. But are keeping pally pally with Pakistan. Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan a vegetable state as its its historical enemy and the Usa wants to keep the world scared of Al Qaeda so they have licence to do what they like.

It all stinks of sh1t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think allrightyessa's post was pointing to the idea of the Iranian's 'Oil Bourse' in Euros - this could be seen as a 'swipe' against the US - indeedy!

Perhaps, but it seems more economic sense when the US keeps signing away more and more bonds to pay for its excursions - with trade still at a low flowing out of the states.


The US dollar ain't what it used to be

Link to comment
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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...