Iran in the crosshairs?

Iran in the crosshairs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RealityLicks -> Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 6:32:07 AM)
Does the US commander in the Middle East's resignation mean that the way is being cleared for a war on Iran? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7290826.stm To avoid a repetition of sexed-up intel again being used to justify hostilities, the US intelligence community (NIE) has stated categorically that Iran halted it's nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Admiral Fallon did not support an attack on Iran and was accused of blocking it, so his sudden departure is widely viewed as a prelude to Washington ordering a new campaign centred on regime change in Iran. If you have a view, share it. apologies for sloppy typos...

xBullx -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 7:00:02 AM)
I suppose time will tell on this, but I have my opinions and I'd bet that egos and top end power struggle would be a more exact reason for this change. Their is more jealousy and "professional" competition between these top brass types than there are at any other level in the Military. My bet is if you look deeper into that you'll get a more defined answer to this developement. And that has little to do with Bush other than where his ears are turned too.

RealityLicks -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 7:13:35 AM)
Hope you're right, Bull.

LadyEllen -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 7:33:13 AM)
When in a very deep hole, stop digging. And dont expect digging elsewhere to produce anything but another hole. Although of course, the threat of war on Iran will do what to oil prices I wonder? And I wonder further as to who might benefit from even higher oil prices and what connection they might have with an administration which lets noise about possible war seep out? Only a few months left to make one's fortune after all. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 7:42:55 AM)
Bush has to provoke Iran while he's in power which doesn't give him much time. I'm convinced his administration is imperial, there is no other reason for the US's aggressive stance in the ME. Iran is Europe's backyard and no Europeans are getting so worked up about Iran, a little concerned but no more than their concern over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and its danger of spreading, something which the US doesn't seem at all concerned about.

xBullx -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 7:49:53 AM)
Howdy RL, Yeah, I hope I'm right on that too. It's mostly a land based conflict in the Middle East and I'd guess the Army and maybe even the Marine (Naval Infantry) top brass is constantly digging at the seams. It's amazing how those that preach Chain of Command so much, have no use for it when it comes to them. On the other hand, I have to wonder if this Admiral is looking at the conflict, force capacity or the economic struggles this would mulitply. Hell, maybe he's a candidate for Secretary of State on one side or another. I think that was part of Chavez's latest actions. Drive costs up even further here. Our economy can't take much more upswings in fuel cost expense. We need relief and we need it soon. The cost that will be getting passed on to consumers pretty soon will be pretty ugly. Bull

thompsonx -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 8:34:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Howdy RL, Yeah, I hope I'm right on that too. It's mostly a land based conflict in the Middle East and I'd guess the Army and maybe even the Marine (Naval Infantry) How quaint...Do you also believe that the Marine corps is part of the navy? top brass is constantly digging at the seams. It's amazing how those that preach Chain of Command so much, have no use for it when it comes to them. How so? On the other hand, I have to wonder if this Admiral is looking at the conflict, force capacity or the economic struggles this would mulitply. Hell, maybe he's a candidate for Secretary of State on one side or another. Or...just maybe he was not interested in being the captain of a sinking ship. I think that was part of Chavez's latest actions. Drive costs up even further here. Possibly he is not interested in being Bush's bitch. Our economy can't take much more upswings in fuel cost expense. We need relief and we need it soon. The cost that will be getting passed on to consumers pretty soon will be pretty ugly. One can only hope so. Then maybe they will impeach that warmonger and get someone in who might try to get along with our neighbors. Bull

Real0ne -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 8:36:16 AM)
Normally people step down when in disagreement with the direction policy makers want to go. That in mind what was this guy against? WHat was he for? Usually tells the story.

RealityLicks -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 8:44:15 AM)
We teach best what we most need to learn. Perhaps the price of an essential resource is secondary to geo-political control of it?

Stephann -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 9:00:20 AM)
Iran represents the last bastion of organized, national resistance against Isreal. Cold War convention suggests that if you cut the head off the snake, it will die. Sadly, Arab mentality is more like a hydra; cut one head off, two grow back. Invasion of Iran is not in our interest, yet those with their hands deepest in our government's pockets still see more gold down there to dig for (and need to go through the pocket seam 'Iran' to reach it.) Tangling with Iran would become the biggest military and economic blunder in the history of the United States, right now. Sadly, we still have just the blundering idiot in office left to do it. I have (perhaps misplaced) faith that national apathy and congressional opposition will prevent this horrible mistake. Iran is our enemy, because it's profitable to a small few in power for them to be our enemy. Stephan

luckydog1 -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 10:11:50 AM)
"To avoid a repetition of sexed-up intel again being used to justify hostilities, the US intelligence community (NIE) has stated categorically that Iran halted it's nuclear weapons programme in 2003. " Are you agreeing that Iran did have an illegal, secret Weopons program up untill Bush sent the Troops into Iraq.

Muttling -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 12:17:14 PM)
I think it is yet another example of this administration casting asside excellent people because they are willing to disagree with the administration. Bush seems to prefer "yes" people to those who ask the tough questions.

RealityLicks -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 12:32:59 PM)
It's a really interesting response, Stephann. The "Arab" view might be that since Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, it follows that there will always be some resistance to it, that that is the cause of conflict rather than some innate Arab dislike of Israel per se. Many of the less radically-oriented Arab states, those with established alliances in the West, still refuse entry to people with Israeli passports for instance, out of solidarity with the Palestinians. That suggests that the hydra's head is actually located in the West Bank and not in Tehran.

RealityLicks -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 12:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling I think it is yet another example of this administration casting asside excellent people because they are willing to disagree with the administration. Bush seems to prefer "yes" people to those who ask the tough questions. I tend to agree. But with him leaving so abruptly after just a year, I wonder why he didn't stick it out? After all, Bush goes in mere months. Was he pushed, so that action can be initiated and the US (and a significantly trimmed set of allies) quickly embroiled in another mess out there?

Stephann -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 12:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks It's a really interesting response, Stephann. The "Arab" view might be that since Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, it follows that there will always be some resistance to it, that that is the cause of conflict rather than some innate Arab dislike of Israel per se. Many of the less radically-oriented Arab states, those with established alliances in the West, still refuse entry to people with Israeli passports for instance, out of solidarity with the Palestinians. That suggests that the hydra's head is actually located in the West Bank and not in Tehran. Looking back one hundred years ago, you'd find that there was no consolidated Arab dislike of Jews. Ironically, the foundations of the Arab/Israeli conflict is grounded in the use of ethnicities by leaders, to garner support. Tehran uses the Palestinian issue as a vehicle to further their own interests in the region in the exact same manner Israel does. Without a Gaza strip or Golan Heights conflict, what happens to US subsidization of Israel? Japan has enjoyed the same security for decades, and I don't see them petitioning for any serious overhaul to the current system, so long as North Korea remains hostile. As for the less radical states, bear in mind it's only been a couple/few decades since various military conflicts with Israel have come to pass. Arabs weren't in any rush to box each other into one unified box (how many years were Iran and Iraq at each other's throats?) until the US decided to roll into the Middle East as the biggest player of them all? Had the US not intervened in the manner we have, do you not realize that Al Qaeda and Hezbollah would have just as soon blow each other up, as anyone else? Stephan

mnottertail -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 12:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks I tend to agree. But with him leaving so abruptly after just a year, I wonder why he didn't stick it out? After all, Bush goes in mere months. Was he pushed, so that action can be initiated and the US (and a significantly trimmed set of allies) quickly embroiled in another mess out there? Toe the line, or get fired, and if I can't get that handled you will be reassigned to flying planeloads of rubber dogshit outta hong kong. GW

RealityLicks -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 1:32:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Looking back one hundred years ago, you'd find that there was no consolidated Arab dislike of Jews. Ironically, the foundations of the Arab/Israeli conflict is grounded in the use of ethnicities by leaders, to garner support. Tehran uses the Palestinian issue as a vehicle to further their own interests in the region in the exact same manner Israel does. Without a Gaza strip or Golan Heights conflict, what happens to US subsidization of Israel? That's true. Which is why a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine is essential to begin reducing the temperature across the whole region. Two states because it is impossible to believe that generations of conflict can be defused by anything other than by two separate autonomous states who must cooperate with each other for survival, not with outside interests. quote: As for the less radical states, bear in mind it's only been a couple/few decades since various military conflicts with Israel have come to pass. Arabs weren't in any rush to box each other into one unified box (how many years were Iran and Iraq at each other's throats?) until the US decided to roll into the Middle East as the biggest player of them all? Had the US not intervened in the manner we have, do you not realize that Al Qaeda and Hezbollah would have just as soon blow each other up, as anyone else? Stephan Well, Iran alone is made up from ten or more ethnic groups who have coexisted for three millenia. Taking the ME as a whole it is hard to see it as intrinsically more or less peaceful than any other area of the world. The break-up of the Soviet Union rippled across Europe causing celebration and conflict alike, so it's fair to assume that adjusting to a new era is likely to have ups as well as downs. There will be new rivalries - there and here. Eventually however, people require their leaders to win the peace as well as win the war. In general terms, everyone wants the same thing but it takes foresight and trust to make it start happening and move aside those who profit only from conflict.

Stephann -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 2:02:30 PM)
With that said, only one thing will cause the entire ME to come together at this stage: fear of the US. Which is why we will continue to foster friendships with some ME countries, and enemies in others. So long as we have dogs in the fight, they'll continue to fight each other, and we'll continue to pay for it. Stephan

luckydog1 -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 2:31:11 PM)
"Looking back one hundred years ago, you'd find that there was no consolidated Arab dislike of Jews. " This is not true in any meaningfull sense. Jews were legall defined as less than full citizens, not allowed to testify in court against Muslims, required to Live in certain area, not allowed to Marry Muslims, had to pay a special "protection tax", and acknowledge t he "supremacy of Islam". This body of law is called Dhimi. Christians in Muslim lands had a similar set of restrictions. It existed rom the time of Mohameds conquests untill the late 1860. and its removal caused riots and pogroms accross the Ottoman Emipire. I guess it could be argued that they were not "disliked", as long as they knew thier place and didn't get uppity, like Armenian Christians. At times they even did well. As long as they knew thier place. If you have never read about Dhimi, you really should. Most people seem to pretend it was not a reality. It was Apartied and Jim Crow for over a thousand years....

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iran in the crosshairs? (3/12/2008 2:45:39 PM)
And Arab countries have treated the Palestinians so much better in the past 60 years? http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/arabtreatmentofpalestinians.html quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks It's a really interesting response, Stephann. The "Arab" view might be that since Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is wrong, it follows that there will always be some resistance to it, that that is the cause of conflict rather than some innate Arab dislike of Israel per se. Many of the less radically-oriented Arab states, those with established alliances in the West, still refuse entry to people with Israeli passports for instance, out of solidarity with the Palestinians. That suggests that the hydra's head is actually located in the West Bank and not in Tehran.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875