Iran soon?

They won't invade Iran, its just too much of a sticky situation. The people won't rise up, and the American and world public will never let it happen. People are furious now that the US can't control Iraq, and it has 1/3 the people.

It's just planning, the US can't and won't act upon it. Congress would never approve it, nor would any other world government go along with it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

This looks to me like nothing other than generic strategic planning that has been going on since the invention of warfare. I think the reporter, and the anonymous source, are seriously overinflating what is probably going on, which is just basic hypothetical scenario considerations.
I guarantee you similar things have been looked at in regards to China, Russia, France, and every other even remotely powerful nation in the world.

Ah, sensationalism at its best I see. They must be running out of good stuff to report.

True, I'm pretty sure we've all heard the stories/rumors of the US's ability to orchestrate an invasion of any country on earth...Of course, whether thats true or not is a different issue. I agree with you on that though.

Iran is a threat not to the US, but US interests in the Gulf. It having a modernized military capable of acting rapidly and inserting itself into the Gulf region would paralyze global oil markets and the world economy. Iranian missile tests of extremely fast torpedos capable of sinking full warships and long range missiles only add more worry.

The Iranian military is developing into a fairly powerful force and is becoming very self reliant. The US is worried that if it becomes too strong, it will take advantage of the situation and act swiftly and powerfully enough that by the time the US is capable of retaliating, it would be too late. It's the exact same policy the Chinese are employing with Taiwan - be able to strike and destroy so rapidly that a response would be too little too late.

Quote:

Germany has far more to worry about Iran getting nukes than the US does.

The only people with a legitament fear of Iranian nukes are the Gulf states. Iran wouldn't use one on Israel since that basically ensures their own destruction, however the Gulf states don't have such a weapon to retaliate, and the US wouldn't be too keen on doing it for them either.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Why would the Gulf states have the most to fear? I was under the impression that Iran's hostile intentions are directed to the Western nations.

And they consider Gulf states to be American stooges. Plus, they can't exactly attack US soil.

In general, Gulf states don't get along with Iran for a very simply reason. The Arab world basically has four power poles - Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Each nation has its region of influence. Egypt has some of north Africa, Syria has Lebanon, Saudi Arabia has all the Gulf states and Jordan to an extent, and Iran is a power on its own and a Shia factor.

The Saudi's and the Iranians in particular do not get along well at all, ever since Ayatollah Khomeni came to power. On the surface they appear friendly, but they engage in skirmishes every once in a while and throw insults bashing the other side. They would both relish the chance to see the other regieme non-existent. The thing is, Iran is just too large for the Saudi Army to deal with in an offensive war, and Saudi is too large for Iran to deal with as well. A nuclear weapon however means one side can basically wipe out the major cities and gain a huge advantage. In particular, a strike on Prince Sultan Airbase, the King Khalid Military City, and one of the three major cities would completely cripple the countries ability to defend itself and cause it to keel over to an Iranian attack.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Uh no. Why do you think France and Germany are supporting the US when Bush' administration talks about attacking Iran when they were insanely against attacking Iraq? Because they are now at risk.

No, they are worried as well as the US about the stability of global markets and their interests in the Gulf. A threat to US/French/German interests does not mean its a threat to the actual countries, and even a complete end to oil exports from the Gulf would not doom the world economy, even though it would be a extreme setback.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Bush has just dismissed this as wild speculation. While I doubt hes being completely truthful, I think the issue has been successfully resolved.

I was speaking idiomatically.

April 17th issue just means they are disclosing what they intend to show in it in advance. It's common for publications to do that, and indeed ship early as well.

That said, it just seems like common military planning. I highly doubt theres an active effort currently going on to find a way to launch an invasion.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The US controls 25% of the world economy and is a sole superpower. Kicking it out of the UN destroys the UN. The US is the worlds only country capable of acting in many situations, and as has been said before - theres only one thing worse than Washington in power, and thats Washington not in power. Whether you like it or not, the US is a stabilizing force in the world, and kicking it out of the UN destroys the body and has huge ramifications.

Besides, no current veto country would accept it. Besides Britain, China, France, and Russia all want the US there. Thinking that UN ejection is even a remote possibility is actually pretty idiotic, for there are so many factors involved in the US's current power. And despite how shaky relations always seem to be with France and Germany, don't forget that they are still three of the worlds closest allies by any standard.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

"Do your best to remain neutral in world affairs."

As the worlds sole superpower, thats not an option. It ceased being an option after 1945. However, there is a difference between acting in world affairs and being imperialistic. The US needs to act to diffuse conflict and enforce international law in some ways since not doing so would result in flagrant violations. However, invading other countries is a different issue.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Agreed, though I'd argue that China could be called a superpower as well while it messes a lot less with world affairs.

Superpower in the general regard refers to the overwhelming might politically, economically, and militarily. Politically, the nation must have a system which it can export and can survive (ie. Communism or Democracy), it must have an economy capable of dwarfing all other countries (ie. Socialist or Capitalist), and it must have a military capable of projecting its forces in land, sea, and air.

In this regard, China fails all three categories. Part of its peaceful rise policy means that it doesn't export its government system unlike the Soviet Union did, and China's sphere of influence basically encompases Mongolia, the DPRK, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Nowhere near the breadth of America's, which ecompases the Gulf oil nations, India, the rest of Southeast Easia, Western Europe, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

It does not have an economy even close to rivaling the US. It's GDP in nominal terms is less than 2 trillion USD, less than Germany, Japan, and not much more at all than France, the UK, and Italy. The US economy on the other hand clocks in around 12 trillion USD.

Militarily, China is on the rise, but again, fails miserably. It's nuclear arsenal is its only projection ability. It's navy is far less capable than the British, Japanese, or French navies, and those three navies hardly even come close to rivaling the US. It possess no air projection capacity and thus does not have the infastructure to initiate an invasion of a nation half way around the world, or even far beyond its Western border (Tibet).

So no, I wouldn't consider China a superpower. It's definately on the rise and eventually, it likely will garner the name. But now, definately not.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

It sucks that there is the idea of a nuclear strike, even if as a bunk-buster, going through some people's minds.

What is somewhat comforting though is that some officers would resign if the option were used. I can't imagine public opinion ever supporting this either though, so at least it would be okay there as well.

Quote:

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Never accept that idea. Challenge Styphon and others who know a lot (ie, Night Phoenix as well) or you'll never learn much. Having to figure out how to retort is better than just studying what they say. Thats just my opinion though.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Japan and South Korea, Morrocco, Argentina, etc.

They're all regional powers. I don't see any of them becoming world superpowers like China. Japan is already at its high and likely won't get much more powerful, and Brazil has the chance to rise, but it won't become a US or anything.

Regional powers are still very much alive and will survive, its not coming to an end really.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

>.< I addressed the entire thing on page two.


Also, theres a difference between a world power and a superpower in some regards. You talked about the military aspect, although remember, military power is a difficult area. For example, the French and British both have remarkably powerful navies. No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly. The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force. In addition, France has a formiddable strategic bomber force, nuclear force, and strong air dogfight capabilities. Yet, its not a superpower.

Distinctions are a bitch sometimes, aren't they?

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, the French, British, Russians, and Americans are probably the four most liberally minded when it comes to using their militaries nowdays. The French certainly don't hesitate when it comes to dealing with their former colonies and civil wars (read: Ivory Coast).

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is. Compared to the British version that is, which relies heavily on US designs such as the Trident missile.

Quote:

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

Probably, its a pretty large ship. Although if theres a zone thats about to go hot, you usually have a few days/weeks notice to move there at least. Point taken though.

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Still, your major point was that the biggest problem for a country is secrecy. Well, the cat's already out of the bag, so there's no sense in them even worrying about secrecy. As far as obtaining materials, aren't the Russian more than willing to sell nuclear technology? Weapons are their biggest export right now.

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly interested in doing the tango with the US Government either. Russian nuclear facilities are also secured in large part by US money, there was a fund set up if I remember correctly after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I forget its name. Regardless, the US helps secure it, so it would be hard to conceal it in any case.

Russia depends on the US too much to be willing to lose that relationship over selling weapons to nations like Iran. Theres too much at stake.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Say what?

How did Israel screw the US over?

Ever wonder why Iran needs a nuclear weapon? Yeah - Israel has a good 200 of them.

Ever wonder why a majority of the Middle East is pissed off at the US? Yeah - blatant support of Israel.


Israel is the biggest reason the US won't win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. It either needs to become more balanced in its foreign policy, or enjoy the status quo.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Care to expand on that?

In addition, ever heard of AIPAC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC

It alone is enough - and its influence has caused the US to be forced to act in Israeli instead of American interests multiple times.

Most amazing jew boots

Quotes like this from the Wikipedia article:

Quote:

"[It] gained so much political muscle that by 1985 AIPAC and its allies could force President Reagan to renege on an arms deal he had promised to [Jordan's] King Hussein. By 1986, the pro-Israel lobby could stop Reagan from making another jet fighter deal with Saudi Arabia, and Secretary of State George Shultz had to sit down with AIPAC's executive director -- not Congressional leaders -- to find out what level of arms sales to the Saudis AIPAC would tolerate".

In addition, get a hold of the London Book Review version of the "Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy" booklet. According to their polls, AIPAC ranks as more powerful than the NRA and the AFL-CIO, and is only overtaken by the AARP. Considering what many have said, that isn't very farfetched. Goole Search the paper and read it if you have the time, its an eye opener.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

I can't back this up at this time, but I've seen references which indicate that Israel would feel more compelled to use nuclear weapons in a war should the U.S. stop supplying them with military tech. Besides, without obvious American support, Israel would be more vulnerable as a target.

If Amenidijad or whatever his name is wants to wipe Israel off them map, he's not increasing his chances with his rhetoric which is only serving to bring Israel closer to the rest of the world.

Nobody is going to attack Israel because they know that Israel has a good 200 nuclear weapons of its own. No matter how crazy leaders may seem, they are not suicidal and will not turn suicidal unless threatened to that point.

Quote:

What about selling AWACS to china?

AIPAC killed AWACS sales to Saudi for years for no apparent reason, theres no way China is going to get them. Besides, all the Western countries still have a arms block after Tianamen Square.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'm back, so time to address some comments.

Quote:

Doubt is never a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to be blind to not see how much influence AIPAC wields. But so do a lot of other lobbyist groups in Washington.

You could always ask one our esteemed elected representives what benefits they see in continuing our current relationship with Israel. Probably would get better information then from me... probably. heh.

AIPAC isn't just powerful, its considered the second most powerful lobby orginization in the US, ranked only behind the AARP. Even the NRA fails to compete against it. There's a difference between being a powerful lobby and one so influential that any major decision in Congress needs its approval. AIPAC ranks as the latter.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Saudi Arabia is much, much more stable than almost any other Middle Eastern country except Israel in many ways. It maintains an extremely capable army and national guard whos land forces can rival any other country in the region, including Iran. It maintains huge investments for keeping up the Grand Mosque and the Hajj in ways nobody can imagine. That alone hugely bolsters the Monarchy's position. In addition, it has led the country very, very well in the past decades. It has presided over enormous economic growth and wealth, and helped its people evolve. The Saudi economy is more resilient than any other in the region, it has proven virtually immune to the damage of terrorist attacks and stock market plunges. Lastly, the current King has a roughly 70-80% approval rating last I heard. US bases in the Kingdom has always been a contentious issue, but at the same time, the government is a respected international authority in the global and especially the Islamic world. It's a much more important and beneficial ally to the US.

So no, Saudi Arabia, while a monarchy, is in fact a very stable and secure country. The Iraq invasion also has no bearing on supporting the royal family, if you learned more about how the country functions, you'd find out that in fact Iraq harms the royal families stability so much more than it helps. The US has two military systems in the country (USMTM and OPM-SANG) to ensure the countries stability, and in any event of a real crisis, the US 5th Fleet and its troops are all in Bahrain, as is an air wing in Qatar.

Quote:

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

America has the entire 5th Fleet in Bahrain, what more protection could you ask for? It secures oil assets everywhere from Kuwait to Oman and is right next to the most critial pieces of oil infastructure in the world - the Abqiaq and Ras Tanura refiners.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

I still think that people give AIPAC too much credit. Israel/AIPAC still has not secured the release of Jonathan Pollard even though they've asked a half a dozen times or more. From both Democrat and Republican presidents. It seems that AIPAC has been taking an increasing amount of heat for the US's actions involving Palestine over the years though. So at least there's a scapegoat.

Maybe, although heh, we're both guilty of trying to place a somewhat numerical value on influence, and in that regard, its difficult to judge the power of a group. It's all very relative.

Quote:

I'll take your word for most of what you talked about. The news we get over here about that particular country is too skewed to make much sense of it. On the financial front though, no economist in their right mind will believe that Saudi Arabia is 100% immune from terrorist attacks on refineries or other oil infastructure.

Definately, its not 100% immune or anything, but its simply more stable than most other countries in the world where such actions would shock the country into a stock market crash.

Quote:

I would like to know where you're getting your numbers though. Outside of Al Jazeera (sp?) I don't think they have a lot of independent media in the region. So anything else is state owned. Forgive me for being a little skeptical, but we are talking about an autocratic monarchy.

I forget where, and in general, it might not be a number so much as a popular feel. The King has a good reputation, much better than his predecessor, and hes done a lot with the influx of oil money to increase his popularity.

As for independent media, its a funny issue. In one regard, there are a decent number of media stations in the Arab world that are private, and Al Jazeera is not one of them. However, most private media stations are owned by Saudi investors, meaning that while independent, they aren't very critical of the country. Al Jazeera, as a state owned group by the Qatari government, has the feeling of being independent, although in actuality, it is under the whims of a government.

Quote:

What about Bin laden's influence? He's a Saudi after all, and his family is influencial or so I hear. As for the US military deployments in the region I had no clue.

The Bin Laden family is a touchy issue. He has support among some poor groups, although some actions he sponsored were not popular, and attacks against economic infastructure do not go over well in the country overall.

His family disowned him as well, and for good reason. They're one of the wealthiest families in the world, and have strong ties to the royal family and many US corporations.

Lastly, the US deployments are pretty low key. They are primarily for training loyal national guardsmen to ensure the stability of the royal family. As I said, its a contentious issue and so they don't want to give any ammo to their critics.

Quote:

I think worldwide public opinion of the 'States is already at rock bottom. What with the war in Iraq, the prison scandals, and numerous other reasons. Our actions involving Israel does not need to help kill our country's reputation or popularity any.

Actually, you'd be surprised. In the Arab world and Europe, its in the shitter. But looking at polls in places like India, I actually think that its not overly negative. US ideals and the dream of a better life still cling on, and since India feels unthreatened by the US, people are more willing to look at the positive side.

In the Arab world also, its not overly atrocious. You have all the groups, but as well, many realize what the US has done for these nations. The Gulf would never be what it is today without huge US help, and Iranians on the streets are generally friendly to US views.

In general, people don't hate the US. They just hate the Bush administration.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Ugh, is that the newly crowned King or the one that passed away?

King Abdullah, the newly crowned one.

Quote:

Still doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden wants to overthrow the monarchy who he views as American pawns. Given the oppurtunity he probably would. So that's still a source of instability in my mind.

Of course, but hes a destabilizing figure just like the KKK was in the US. He wants to change how the government functions, doesn't mean they have the knowledge or capability to do so however.

Quote:

Sure. But the Palestine question concerns everybody and not just Israel. It was really the UN that started this mess in the first place.

The Palestine issue concerns the entire region especially. The US needs to remain involved, and US opinion isn't at rock bottom anyways.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?