Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 191 (355374)
10-09-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
10-09-2006 11:24 AM


Imagine--had we thrown our full might into Afghanistan, the country would have been able to be rebuilt. We never threw our full might into that war. I think it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of winning wars with overwhelming forces, or something to that effect. Leave to Rumsfield to fuck it all up.
Colin Powell was possibly right but that presumes the war is winnable in the first place. Afghanistan is nearly the size of France - with some advantages for those whose intention is to live and fight another day - not least their in depth knowledge of the US Military.
google maps writes:
The Soviets finally invaded in 1979, but they were forced to withdraw ten years later by anti-Communist guerrilla fighters (known as mujahidin) trained and supplied by the U.S. and other outside powers.
It’s Afghanistan’s legendary rugged terrain that makes warfare so difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 11:24 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 7 of 191 (355398)
10-09-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-09-2006 12:59 PM


The point is that you build on strength, and to do that you needed to succeed in Afghanistan before venturing into other mid-east countries.
It makes sense to do so but that presumes everybody is playing to the tune of the piper. Would not maintaining democracy in Afghanistan demand continous large scale military presence until such time as it was certain that there could be no reemergance. How does one determine that - you don't destroy guerillas who chose to retreat until a suitable time?
In the meantime there are other demands placed on the military. Lets face it: the US did not go into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. The chief concern was oil and the threat to the worlds supply of oil has long been an issue of concern there. Instabilitily is the nature of the Middle East and whether it comes from Saddam WMD or Israel taking out Irans nuclear power stations or some attack or other on Israel or destabilising action in Saudi Arabia. Going in after someone has thrown a stick of dynamite into this cauldron is far less advisable and far more costly than doing it before such a thing happens. A major disruption in Middle East oil supply would bring Western economies to their knees.
Someone had to go in an take control of the region (in terms of worlds oil supply not demoncracy in Iraq. You don't always get to chose the ideal time
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:18 PM iano has replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 2:19 PM iano has replied
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:25 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 191 (355400)
10-09-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-09-2006 12:59 PM


Let me make another point.
9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks around the world was, I think a declaration of war. What 9/11 showed, in symbol form, was just how vunerable the west is to attack. The bombers used the very resources of their enemies against their enemies. Their aircraft training, their aircraft, their people, their buildings. Then in England we find the attackers are English themselves born and bred.
But it was symbolic in the sense that it wasn't in itself going to actually rock the wests delicate structure.
The attempt to explode 10 planes over the Atlantic ocean took things to a new level. If 10 planes dissappeared off the radar and no one had a clue how it was done (other than it was a terroritst attack) then what could the response be? Tighter security? Against which threat - soft drinks bottles? 10 planes down and air travel takes a serious knock. But increased security is let run a while and all seems well. Confidence resumes. Then 10 more - this time elsewhere in the world - again over the ocean so little chance of evidence. And then another 10?
Air travel as we know it: cheap and for the masses comes to a grinding halt. The airline industry (which is very low margin and must fly full-to-the-brim planes) starts going bust. You can't run a low margin business requiring packed planes for long if the planes aren't packed. Every month you have to pay the bank for the planes you've leased. Boeing goes bust. The banks who have all this money tied up in leased and worthless aircraft go bust- who are they going to sell these aircraft to and where are they going to get the money to pay what THEY need to pay every month if it isn't coming in? Your talking major ramifications for a cost of some people willing to die for a cause and some very simple explosives.
The West is a complex and delicate structure. You don't need to take it on head to head. No brute force required. Don't take on their B-52's and their guided missiles. Guerilla war taken to the enemy is the way to go. And once you decide that, you only have to kick out some of the spindly legs the delicate structure stands on to knock it all down. Its like wrestling (not that farce on the tv). You use the power and weight of the opponant against him. Adroitness and skill - not brute power. Now apply the same ingenuity to another of the spindly legs the West stands on. A big one this time: oil supply for example.
Now if Bush and Co. see things my way and took the evidence that was coming at them from various terrorist attacks around the world then to those same conclusions they might well have come. Immediate and most urgent action? Secure the very spindly leg of oil - immediately!
I wouldn't bet against dreaming up some simple yet very effective way to set off the tinderbox of the Middle East. Look what it took to ignite WW1
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 10:12 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 191 (355405)
10-09-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
10-09-2006 2:19 PM


What maintains governments here and in other established nations? The willing participation of the people -- that whole basis of the Dec of Ind and the USConst: we the people in order to form a more perfect union etc.
You don't achieve this quickly nor without a lot of grief as your own countries establishment and mine demonstrates. And it is the people themselves that come to this conclusion - you cannot have a third party come in an do it in 2, 3, 4 years.
The question is not where they go, but where the next generation comes from. Eliminate that pool of recruits and the problem will be reduced with each generation. Treat those that are caught as criminals, with the same rights and recourses as other criminal, as human beings. Treat the actions as criminal actions.
My comment were aimed at the idea of some short term solution. America was never going to in the business of going to the other side of the world and settle in with massive force to ensure this could happen. Never. A reaction to 9/11 needed to be made but the problem is far more complex than that. This is global.
No. The same resources devoted to developing alternate energy will be much more productive. Pull the energy rug out from under the middle east and see what happens eh? Push comes to shove we can walk or bus or commute electronically.
A serious interruption in the Middle East oil supply would result in the immediate meltdown of the worlds economic system. You wouldn't have time to find "alternative reasources and methodologies". No oil tomorrow and the world is out of work. We'd be knocked back to the stone ages.
Or you could go in a nuke the hell out of the place in order to get that supply going again. No waiting for UN resolutions. Compare the costs with the current cost and see (relatively) wise (if horrific) investment. Needs must RAZD - even if it ain't pretty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 2:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 4:21 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 191 (355411)
10-09-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kuresu
10-09-2006 2:25 PM


Why did the soviet union lose their war in afghanistan? They were attempting to break it's back and make it their own. THe afghanis didn't stand for that. When we threw out the Taliban, we had a golden oppurtunity to build up that country--we had the support of the populace. Instead, we moved our military to Iraq, and kep a token force in afghanistan. Where was the rebuilding?
America found out how hard it is to win wars like Vietnam. Everyone has their theories about it but thats not enough to risk another one. They were never going to try that in afghanistan. What tide would they be stemming in Afghanistan. A global terrorist one? And American public opinion would is not going to even come close to seeing Afghanistan as Vietnam. Rebuilding Afghanistan. Who give a rats ass about Afghanistan? It has no oil and the terrorist can move elsewhere.
Instead, it was, okay, Taliban out, now time for Saddam Hussein. That's not how you fight a war against terrorism when the terrorist leaders can promise you stability--which is why the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence of power and influence.
I don't think anyone has formulated a way to fight a war against terror. Certainly brute force and invading countries will not work. Afghanistan was retaliation and being seen to take action - but for goodness sake don't get bogged down there. Iraq is about protecting one of the most crucial elements that makes the world currently go round (even if it must heat up in the process). America is never leaving the middle east. Not until the oil is gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:25 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 3:23 PM iano has not replied
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 10-09-2006 3:25 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 191 (355548)
10-10-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by kuresu
10-09-2006 2:18 PM


Pray tell me, what work has been done on getting the Iaqi oil up and running? If we went in their for oil, do you really think we would let the amount of oil being produced fall?
Iraq isn't about such short terms goals - it is about securing the region so that oil supply long term can be protected. Fluctuations and blips the worlds economic system can handle. Just knowing (or being under the impression) that oil supply from the Middle East is more or less secure stabilises world markets. You don't need anything to happen to the supply in order to destabilise things - the perception of threat in itself is enough to cause things to go wobbly.
Will investors invest in something which is heavily reliant on oil supply if that investment is percieved as risky (due to uncertainty about oil supply)? Would people invest so as to allow an airline to expand into emerging markets? Would they invest in a motor car companies lauching a new range of cars or...(and its a long list when your talking oil)?
Uncertainty is the enemy of the stock market and the stock market makes the world go round. And the stock market (capitalism-in-action) floats on oil.
We didn't go there to liberate the people, I'll buy that. If anything, we went there to fix daddy's mistake.
It may have been mistaken not to 'complete' the job. It may not have been. Everyone operates under constraints - they are not free to do as they please. Removing Saddam in the Gulf War would have left the US with more or less the same problem that the US has now - a long and costly presence on the ground is required due to the removal of the person who held things in check - they have to do what Saddam was doing but they are constrained in ways which Saddam wasn't in so doing. Very complex business when you are constrained thus.
{AbE} On reflection, leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was I think a deliberate strategic decision. He would do the job of keeping Iraq under control yet his ability to destabilise the region was eliminated. A toothless tiger outside his own borders but a ragin and ruthless lion within them. Perfect! He could always be taken out at any time in the future were that need to arise. It arose: "time to go into the Middle East"
Maybe it was felt that Saddam would take the hint and be a good boy - he was shown in no uncertain terms that destabilising the region would not be tolerated: the West would fight like a mother protecting her cubs if required to.
The necessity to go in again wasn't necessarily "finishing off the job" of Saddam. Maybe he had WMD, maybe not. He was but one potentially destabilising influence. Iran is another and a far more certain one. Iran is intent on proceeding with nuclear power - meaning it is proceeding with its potential intent to access nuclear weapons. Israel took a pre-emptive strike against Iraqs attempt at a nuclear facility in 1981 (which the Yanks finished off by carpet bombing it during the Gulf War). She has shown she will not tolerate a stated enemy attempting to access nuclear weapons - which is good defence strategy: why bother getting to MAD if a) you don't have to and b) you have a nut on the other side of the MAD table. Is the US going to sit by with that tinderbox situation waiting to go off? I think not. Post 9/11 there are any other number of things which could tip that region into instability.
If ensuring stability was the intent then all that was needed was an excuse to initiate proceedings. That the excuse was perhaps flimsy is an irrelevancy. Forget the short term. This is long term strategy folk are engaging in
{AbE} Sorry for seeming to be way off topic but am just trying to point out strategy which should indicate that Afghanistan is irrelevant in the scheme of things. It has no strategice significance of note - and there are bigger fish to fry in Iraq
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2006 2:18 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 10:15 AM iano has replied
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 12:09 PM iano has not replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2006 9:37 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 27 of 191 (355587)
10-10-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nwr
10-10-2006 10:15 AM


This is revisionist history. Bush and his gang of thugs were quite clear that this was to be a very short war.
It will be revisionist history whenever the US leave the region. I suggest they never will. Whatever reason would be given would always have been a smokescreen. One can hardly expect them to say:
"We are going to invade and occupy Iraq in order to ensure stable oil supplies" This is politically impossible whereas as a WMD "threat" is politically possible. Once in it doesn't matter whether WMD are found. Your already in.
It was well known that if Saddam had WMD, he didn't have many and he was well contained by policies that had been in effect for 10 years. That Bush and Co said otherwise was a clear misrepresentation, intended to gain political support for a stupid and ignorant policy.
If security of the worlds economic and industrial health was the agenda then that was the agenda. Saddam was the means to execute strategy. Strangely enough it was an uncle of mine who was top tier in NASA and a member of a Clinton government think-tank who first mentioned the security-of-oil issue to me. That was years ago - long before the US invaded this time around.
What do you think would happen if oil supply was interupted for want of American presence and willingness to enfore stability? Some seem to think that we would be able to pull a hydro-economy out of our hats.
Do you think Israel are going to let Iran progress with nuclear power - the waste product of which is weapons grade nuclear material (give their 1981 response to Saddam attempting the same thing)? And if not do you think the US should be there - in the region.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 10:15 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 11:36 AM iano has replied
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 10-10-2006 12:00 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 191 (355613)
10-10-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
10-10-2006 11:36 AM


I don't try to predict what Israel will do.
You do not have to predict. What they will do in these circumstance is known. And the basis for them acting so is a paradigm long held in military thinking: ensure your technology is a generation ahead of your enemy. So long as Israel has nuclear and their enemies do not the balance of power lies with Israel. Someones got to have the balance of power.
Folk may send suicide bombers but they are not able to attack in conventional fashion - Israel would have them for breakfast. But if an enemy got their hands on nuclear weapons then Israel is completely exposed. They cannot afford to let this occur and are in the same position as the US was during the Cuban missile crisis.
It it was, then there has been a colossal failure. The world's economic and industrial health is more threatened now than it would have been if Bush had stayed out of Iraq.
This presumes inside awareness of the threat. There may be many things going on to which we are not privy. The unknown notwithstanding, Israels reaction to Irans current course is a clear and present danger. History proves there is a danger and their current reality wrt to their neighbours proves so - wishful thinking about 'getting on' with enemies who have previously attempted your destruction is just that. Iran can learn something from Iraq. The West will not tolerate any threat to oil - for it cannot afford to tolerate it no more than Israel can tolerate Irans development of nuclear weapons

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 11:36 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 12:37 PM iano has replied
 Message 40 by skepticfaith, posted 10-10-2006 2:39 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 191 (355620)
10-10-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
10-10-2006 12:00 PM


1) Why didn't we just allow Saddam to stay in his box and improve the food for oil program?
Read around the last few points I made. I don't see Saddam as having been a threat. Its threat in the region that counts. My last post to NWR lays one clear threat out.
2) Assuming there was a threat from Saddam regarding oil, why didn't we just rush in to secure the fields and then declare them as international resources, or extend Kuwait/Saudi borders to those fields?
Its not just Iraqi oil - its middle east oil. Saudi, Kuwait etc. The worlds policeman is policing an area bigger than Iraq.
I might add that the Taliban could have, and I suppose still could, obtain nuclear devices.
I suppose they could. My NASA/Defence uncle was telling me some of what is involved when dealing with nuclear material and its not simply a matter of dropping in the former soviet-union nuclear supermarket, making your purchase and pressing "Explode". Not by any means impossible to do but you need a bit more sophistication that the Taliban have. And the more sophistication required the easier to track the the activity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 10-10-2006 12:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 10-10-2006 1:50 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 191 (355629)
10-10-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nwr
10-10-2006 12:20 PM


The alternative, I thought, would likely bog us down in an unwinnable vietnam-style war. Bush Jr's folly has since demonstrated that my assessment was correct.
I think you are dealing with a caricature here. Bush seniors team did make the right move I think. Pull Saddams regionally-directed teeth out and leave his internally-directed teeth in. Given he had no constraints operating on him (such a Nietzsches "usless compassion) there was going to little by way of instability in Iraq (oil-supply wise).
Oil stability in the face of threat makes Iraq this time not at all a bad move. Sure it is more costly but the conditions are not the same as during Desert Storm. You need to meet the threat as it is for least cost. To expect it for free is the only folly here
You are commenting without any reference to what is going on in a geopolitical/economic sense. Of course you arrive at the conclusion of moron.
As that uncle of mine told me: "I watch CNN in order to find out what is NOT the case"
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 12:20 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 36 of 191 (355638)
10-10-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by kuresu
10-10-2006 12:37 PM


Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Haven't you noticed? The calvary have already arrived. A year before Iraq my uncle visited a USAAF airbase which had bombs stockpiled all over the place with B52 bombers circuiting doing practice touch landing/takeoff all day long. It wasn't if but when...
You can be sure measures are in place to ward any other threat. All the moves that might be made by any major player in the region are under constant assessment and prep meausures are put in place for the most dangerous. That is the think tank he was involved with in any case. Threat scenarios and the responses to them.
With 9/11 came the necessity to crank things up a little. 9/11 symbolised what the more recent soft-drink bottle bomb plan almost demonstrated: one doesn't have to have armies to cause serious damage to a delicate system. The shocks will reverberate all the way down the line
For instance.
Lets say you figured that simultaneously knocking out 40 main oil refineries would be enough to send the worlds economic system into a nuclear winter. What would be required? Would smuggling in small quantities of explosives over a period of time and then setting them off in mission critical places that are time consuming to repair do the job? You betcha.
I'm the engineering manager in a fairly complex plant and if you gave me a day I could, without a gramme of explosive, render the plant inoperable for a month. You do it in tiers - a sort of cascade. When folk get to figuring a way around the first problem the solve it and press the go button. Only to find there is another problem. And so on....
Having the ability to secure refineries quickly in the face of non-full-frontal terrorist threat (Holmes "declaring oil an international owned commodity" ie: no longer the possession of sovereign states) is achieved by having forces on the ground. Oil is global and being prepared to declare a global state of emergency became necessary from the lessons one could learn from 9/11
Who bar for the sovereign states are going to complain? And what would the sovereigh states (or even the terrorists) do that could be worse than global economic and industrial meltdown?
Put it this way. If I was the brilliant (if fiendish) thinker that concieved of 9/11 then oil would be were I would be looking right now. I don't for a moment suppose Bush & Co to be as thick as many consider them to be.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 12:37 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 1:25 PM iano has replied
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 3:28 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 191 (355729)
10-10-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
10-10-2006 1:25 PM


No, that's a misreading of 9/11. The events of 9/11 were because there are some people who are very angry at us. The "war against terrorism" should have been a battle to win the hearts and minds of well meaning people everywhere.
I remember well the conversation my dad and a friend of mine had when my friend was about 20. The craze of 'joyriding' (robbing cars and driving around looking for a chase from the cops) was in full swing and mothers with prams were getting run down on the streets of Dublin. Barry was saying that the problem needed to be solved at root level: poverty and hopelessness drove kids to seek excitment and this was the way they did it "you must tackle the root causes or else there is no point.." was Barry's approach
"That's all very well and good" replied my old man "but people are getting run down today. The solution, today, is to ram them when you get a chance and lock them up when you catch them. Make it an unattractive way to get kicks. That solves the problem of today and that is the problem we need to address today"
Winning the hearts and minds of people might reduce recruitment levels at some point but this is a problem of now. And what we have seen is that you only need a relatively insignificant number of people who are bent on your destruction NOW to inflict serious damage. Sowing seeds for the future impinges not at all on the problem now.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 1:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by skepticfaith, posted 10-10-2006 7:09 PM iano has replied
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 10-10-2006 7:43 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 43 of 191 (355732)
10-10-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
10-10-2006 1:50 PM


I'm sorry but I am reading your posts and they aren't making sense to me. You have asserted a concern about oil, which while possible you have not explained why it was imminent. More importantly you have not explained why invading the whole of Iraq was necessary to secure such aims.
I take it I do not have to explain to you the criticality of oil to the worlds economic system. Its not even that supply has to be cut for long - its not tremors that bring a building down in an earthquake but the buildings weight itself. You only have to get it moving in the right way.
What risk to oil supply is an acceptable one - given the consequences of a tremor? I have given Israel/Iran as a risk. Israel is not going to permit nuclear weapons on its doorstep. They have shown themselves in no uncertain terms to be unwilling to accept that already in 1981. According to the long standing military paradigm they could not be expected to do anything else anyway. Are you overlooking that Iran, currently, is bent on moving in that direction and that, in a conventional terms sense (ie: without nuclear weapons) they are no match for Israel (a Irish army officer I know, who has served on numerous UN peacekeeping missions in the region, was of the opinion that the speed at which Israel could march on Damascus (not that they ever would do such a thing) is limited only by how fast their vehicles can travel - such is the military state of the surrounding nations in conventional terms)
Given that risk alone (what do you think might happen in the current climate if Israel struck (pre-emptively) Irans nuclear facilities?) and the total unacceptability of risk to oil supply - do you not see it as wise to have a large military presence on the ground. All systems ready: support systems, war footing, combat readiness. The US is geared up for that particular risk should it manifest itself in reality> it is not the only one even if it would rank high on the war games currently being played out in Washington think-tanks
We can disappear up our own arseholes trying to play amateur wargames with these facts ("why would Israel attacking Iran result in threat to oilfields?) One only has to look at Sarajevo and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the resulting war to see that tinderboxes, when they go off, go off in unexpected fashion. And the Middle East is one giant tinderbox.
And this doesn't even begin to look at the other threat: a terrorist strike against the biggest addiction of all time: the worlds reliance on oil. Talk of hydrogen economies is somewhat premature if one is to presume a world economy to speak of post a lack-of-oil meltdown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 10-10-2006 1:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 10-11-2006 6:14 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 191 (355737)
10-10-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by skepticfaith
10-10-2006 2:39 PM


Re: Explain this to me.
Explain to me why Iran should tolerate Israel in possession of fully developed nuclear weapons.
Of course Iran shouldn't tolerate Israel being the only nuclear power in the region. Of course they should attempt to access these weapons. Any old fool can see that the current imbalance puts Iran at the mercy of Israel. And it is not unexpected that Iran would like to be at least on equal footing. Even plain old national pride insists that Iran attempt what they are attempting.
And any old fool can see that Israel would not permit this to happen (as they didn't permit it to happen in Iraq in 1981). And if they decide not to permit it then what is Iran to do (besides set of the tinderbox that is the Middle East)?
Can you see the surrounding Arab nations twiddling their thumbs in the face of Irans shame. Can you see Iran sitting around twiddling their thumbs in the face of Irans shame. I think not. Not that Israel could loose - ultimately they have the nukes and one of the finest conventional military systems in the world. They have the support of America but they don't need it as such. They can manage quite well - as they have been doing since the war against them started in 1948. 60 years under threat of extinction is not a task anyone else in the region has ever faced afterall.
But this isn't about Israel losing. It is about oil.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by skepticfaith, posted 10-10-2006 2:39 PM skepticfaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 7:25 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 191 (355738)
10-10-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by skepticfaith
10-10-2006 7:09 PM


Re: Not a good analogy..
We've got to accept we are the powerful and the oppressors not the oppressed
I do accept that. But addicts do awful things. Its the way it is - no point in wishing it weren't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by skepticfaith, posted 10-10-2006 7:09 PM skepticfaith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024