Will this be WWIII?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4241527.stm
It must be quite unnerving being a West European leader these days.
There's something undeniably worrying about the noises emanating from Dubya's cabal.
Frankly, the wholly non-concilliatory tone of their presentation, sounds to me like a precursor to something insane.
I have no idea whatsoever about the extent of America's military capacity, given the exertions in Iraq but their current stance is entirely negative propoganda for those brandishing the 'Great Satan' placcards across Asia and the Middle East.
There's just something deeply 'Damien Thorn' about GW and frankly, when you observe his behaviour, given his position, even I feel like a cup of weak tea with Johnny Schroder & Marmaduke Fischer.
I never thought I'd say this but give me Clinton any day: this guy is making me very, very nervous.
It must be quite unnerving being a West European leader these days.
There's something undeniably worrying about the noises emanating from Dubya's cabal.
Frankly, the wholly non-concilliatory tone of their presentation, sounds to me like a precursor to something insane.
I have no idea whatsoever about the extent of America's military capacity, given the exertions in Iraq but their current stance is entirely negative propoganda for those brandishing the 'Great Satan' placcards across Asia and the Middle East.
There's just something deeply 'Damien Thorn' about GW and frankly, when you observe his behaviour, given his position, even I feel like a cup of weak tea with Johnny Schroder & Marmaduke Fischer.
I never thought I'd say this but give me Clinton any day: this guy is making me very, very nervous.
derestrictor said:
this guy is making me very, very nervous.
Bingo.....
Just posturing though I think. The Bush administration seems to think that methods of the cold war are still valid on a world stage. As a result they poke, prode and use the threat of military force to get what they want. Shame the the world has actually moved ono and this type of foreign policy doesnt really work any more.
Iran has come on leaps and bounds in recent years. However, they would risk sending themselves into the dark ages if they did anything stupid - just like the US! So, both have a lot to loose and not much to gain..... cant see the reasoning behind all of this really.
Oh, I am but a mere pawn in the game of life.....
the rest of the world are pretty nervous as well. i fear the world is heading for another "big fecht" (fight), all the pointers of history are there....arms build ups, minor conflicts near-by, territorial disputes, expansion and fundamentaly opposing philosphies fuelled by "religion" and the quest for resources. it just does not look settled ahead, stormy weather.
derestrictor said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4241527.stm
It must be quite unnerving being a West European leader these days.
There's something undeniably worrying about the noises emanating from Dubya's cabal.
Frankly, the wholly non-concilliatory tone of their presentation, sounds to me like a precursor to something insane.
I have no idea whatsoever about the extent of America's military capacity, given the exertions in Iraq but their current stance is entirely negative propoganda for those brandishing the 'Great Satan' placcards across Asia and the Middle East.
There's just something deeply 'Damien Thorn' about GW and frankly, when you observe his behaviour, given his position, even I feel like a cup of weak tea with Johnny Schroder & Marmaduke Fischer.
I never thought I'd say this but give me Clinton any day: this guy is making me very, very nervous.
American doctrine is to be easily able to fight two wars the size of the Iraq invasion simultaneously. IIRC an American carrier task group would be the 4th or 5th most powerful nation on earth and they have 12 of them! Their satellite and RPV intelligence gathering, night fighting and battlefield management skills are such that they could walk through any country even if they were vastly outnumbered. It is this immense military superiority that feeds the arrogance of politicians like GWB.
btw Europe would be just as powerful if we didn't waste so much money having seperate national airforces, navies and armies with seperate weapons procurement programmes. As the European military machine undergoes inevitable integration, gradually, over the coming years and as the Americans will be forced to face up to budget constraints it is inevitable that we get closer to parity.
bruciebabie said:
American doctrine is to be easily able to fight two wars the size of the Iraq invasion simultaneously. IIRC an American carrier task group would be the 4th or 5th most powerful nation on earth and they have 12 of them! Their satellite and RPV intelligence gathering, night fighting and battlefield management skills are such that they could walk through any country even if they were vastly outnumbered. It is this immense military superiority that feeds the arrogance of politicians like GWB.
And he forgets how quickly the public will turn against him once thousands start coming home in body bags at his peril....
I am a bit of a simpleton in terms of world politics (well, in fact most things, actually 
, but what right has the western world got to tell an independant country to stop looking after itself?
Why should America be allowed nuclear stuff and Iran not?
Keep your answers very simple and short please.
, but what right has the western world got to tell an independant country to stop looking after itself? Why should America be allowed nuclear stuff and Iran not?
Keep your answers very simple and short please.
Because further proliferation of Nuclear devices is generally a bad thing.
Its not as if Iran could fire a weapon at us. They may have nuclear devices, but they certainly don't have missile systems to launch them that far - if they did, the yanks would already know about it. You can't hide ICBM sites.
Perhaps they are developing tactical nukes, for use if an army invades.
Its not as if Iran could fire a weapon at us. They may have nuclear devices, but they certainly don't have missile systems to launch them that far - if they did, the yanks would already know about it. You can't hide ICBM sites.
Perhaps they are developing tactical nukes, for use if an army invades.
parrot of doom said:
Because further proliferation of Nuclear devices is generally a bad thing.
Its not as if Iran could fire a weapon at us. They may have nuclear devices, but they certainly don't have missile systems to launch them that far - if they did, the yanks would already know about it. You can't hide ICBM sites.
Perhaps they are developing tactical nukes, for use if an army invades.
Or with just enough range to hit Israel, who are armed to the teeth with nukes. Without being invaded by America, obviously this WMD thing depends on lobby groups back home.
America - freedom for all. Except you. Stop what youre doing and step away from the nuclear power program.
This is going to be exceptionally bad news when america decides to invade iran anyway and have a few of their soldiers cooked by a nuke that they were told would be set off if they came in. I think Iran would actually do it.
And I probably wouldnt criticise them for it.
The good(?) news is the americans will probably stroll in there long before they actually have such a bomb.
This is going to be exceptionally bad news when america decides to invade iran anyway and have a few of their soldiers cooked by a nuke that they were told would be set off if they came in. I think Iran would actually do it.
And I probably wouldnt criticise them for it.
The good(?) news is the americans will probably stroll in there long before they actually have such a bomb.
bruciebabie said:
American doctrine is to be easily able to fight two wars the size of the Iraq invasion simultaneously. IIRC an American carrier task group would be the 4th or 5th most powerful nation on earth and they have 12 of them! Their satellite and RPV intelligence gathering, night fighting and battlefield management skills are such that they could walk through any country even if they were vastly outnumbered.
All a valid point, but it begs the question of why they've made such a dogs breakfast of Iraq if they've got such huge power behind them.
srebbe64 said:
To my way of thinking, the issue of "taking away the weapons" is a nonsense - what you need is to "remove the motivation". The reality is that if a country is motivated to use WMD, they'll find a way of getting hold of them.
In order to remove the motivation the west would have to give Israel back to the Palestinians, and withdraw all Western military personel from the middle east. Allow Iran to fill the power vacum in Iraq and unify the Iranian shia majority with the Iraqi shia majority. Allow Iran to set up huge theocratic republic in the middle east whose ultimate goal would be to usurp power from the Sunni house of Saud. Nuclear weapons in the middle east are a bad idea both for the region, and for the West's continuing economic survival.
IMO:
No - it won't be WWIII, it'll be solved diplomatically, this is just sabre rattling.
No - I don't want fundamentalist mullahs to have nuclear weapons. You might consider it unfair to deny others' aspirations for nuclear weapons, but given that we can't get rid of the damned things, I'd rather like the non-proliferation treaty to be respected. Whilst we're at it, I'd like India and above all Pakistan to be disarmed too (when they finally succeed in assassinating Musharraf it's going to be messy).
Yes - Dubya's eyes are too close together and he's a rampant christian - enough said.
No - it won't be WWIII, it'll be solved diplomatically, this is just sabre rattling.
No - I don't want fundamentalist mullahs to have nuclear weapons. You might consider it unfair to deny others' aspirations for nuclear weapons, but given that we can't get rid of the damned things, I'd rather like the non-proliferation treaty to be respected. Whilst we're at it, I'd like India and above all Pakistan to be disarmed too (when they finally succeed in assassinating Musharraf it's going to be messy).
Yes - Dubya's eyes are too close together and he's a rampant christian - enough said.
derestrictor said:
There's something undeniably worrying about the noises emanating from Dubya's cabal.
Frankly, the wholly non-concilliatory tone of their presentation, sounds to me like a precursor to something insane.
i'm gonna get flamed but i don't care.
i like Bush for the very simple reason that he doesn't want to compromise. we have had too much compromise in the past.
so you either go away with his way of thinking - or you have a barney.
he told Saddam to let the arms inspectors have unfettered access. that didn't happen. he told Saddam to "get out of town". that didn't happen.
and the result is what we see. finally Saddam had his bluff called.
and this is what the Iranians have got to weigh up. Bush has a track record of calling peoples bluff. he's done it twice now, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do they want to call his bluff?
tinman0 said:
and this is what the Iranians have got to weigh up. Bush has a track record of calling peoples bluff. he's done it twice now, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Um lets be fair.
Dubya hasn't bluffed anyone at all. He said he was coming to get Afghanistahn and Iraq, and he did.
Iran however is a different kettle of fish - it's not a virtual third world country with limited armaments / fighting men. The Iranian army would put up very stiff resistance to a US invasion, the whole thing would make the invasion of Iraq look like the Boston Tea Party.
I think the most likely next target is Syria. Much less equipped militarily than Iran, and conveniently geographically placed once under occupation to provide even more leverage for operations in Iran should they 'be required'...
Do hope I'm wrong. But in anycase, I'm seriously thinking of buying a house in St Kitts or similar just in case
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff