Comments Posted By Leo
Displaying 41 To 45 Of 45 Comments
to manning:
Your assumption that Iran might pass nuclear weapons to AlQaeda suprises me.
The Iranian regime is Shiite, it neither supports the Sunni resurgency in Iraq nor would it support in any way their lethal Sunnite enemy AlQaeda - themselves sworn adversaries of all Shiite heretics.
AlQaeda wages a cruel civil war against Iraqi Shiism.
Iran helped to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The Shiite regime in Iran would prefer a compromise with the USA to any alliance and compromise with AlQaeda.
When some US spokesmen recently pointed to Iranian delivery to Sunni IEDs this is - I infer - mere US propaganda: preparation of the assault on Iraq.
Iran does NOT help the Sunni resurgency in Iraq, instead it supports the Shiite allies of the USA there to prevail against the Sunni resurgents.
If the Sunni resurgency prevailed and reconquered Iraq, this would mean a severe defeat for Iran: a come-back of the arch-enemy.
Iran therefore has her interest on the side of a US-Shiite success against the Sunni (Baathist and Salafi) warriors. AFTER, only AFTER such a victory the Shiites could turn against the US occupation force.
In anticipation of a war with Iran the USA is already shifting support gradually toward some groups of the Sunni resurgency - provided they also fight against AlQaeda. That is what we see in Anbar province, in Baquba right now.
A good development, by the way. AlQaeda comes between three hammers, a Shiite, an American and a non-AlQaeda Sunni one.
But in case of a war with Iran USA will completely side with the Sunni Iraqis (Baathist and Salafi), I suppose ... those who right now deploy most of the IEDs that kill US soldiers ...
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 19:23
Thank you for your thoughtful answer, manning.
There are four things I would like to address:
1
What will happen if the Iranians will manage to shut down all the oil traffic in the Persian Gulf?
I don't know whether they will be able to do that, but when you see how difficult it was for the Israelis in the last Lebanon war to take out all the missile launchers ... There may be no more tankers going any more through the Persian Gulf. What then? ALL Mideast oil is shut down then! And THAT would have a nightmarish effect, manning!2
The Chinese buy much of their oil in Iran. So the Chinese may not accept a shutdown of Iranian oil. They might go to press on the USA - and thanks to the vast Dollar reserves they hold and to some dependence of the USA to get enough credit money from China for their budget they may have some leverage here ...
Most of all when all the world will intensify the pressure on the USA to stop the assault immediately.
Moreover, I suppose the more and more negative standing of the USA in the Arab and Muslim world might become a chance for China to establish herself as the future protector of the MidEast oil - replacing the USA.
(That is a long term danger. I wonder when it will start to play a role in US strategic design: The West will have to COURT the Arab people sooner or later to avoid that they will turn to China!)3
Like you I assume that the nuclear ambitions of Iran go farther than having nuclear energy. But I do not think that a nuclear Iran is so much of a danger. Nuclear weapons are only useful for defense - at least as long as there is the capability of the other side to strike back. And this is the case here. Israel is said to have 200 or so nuclear bombs, and then there still is the USA arsenal. So why should Iran commit suicide and strike first?
The advantage of nuclear weapons for Iran is: They will be able to deter better any attack on their territory.
So, whatever they - I do not mean Iran, I mean the Mullah regime of Iran - might like to achieve concerning Israel: they will not be willing to wipe it out with nuclear weapons, because of the consequences.
My preference here is: Detente with the Mullah regime, and patience. Sooner or later the secular part of the nation will prevail, and then we will have a good ally over there.
If we bomb them, we will transfer the whole nation in arch enemies, and stabilize the Theocratic powers in Iran.4
Of course the USA could go back to the draft. But I am quite sure that the voters will not allow it. There is no real readiness to much sacrifice concerning the MidEast. US government and media up to now were hardly willing to explain the US voters the strategic importance of the area and its ressources - so there is not enough insight to understand that for US interests it might be necessary to have the draft again and to double or triple the army.
Therefore, manning, I would suggest we count that in and make our strategic plans according to the limited numbers of active soldiers available right now.
And they are under strain already - the US army could need a break to recover, I suppose.All in all, I recommend more multilateral US politics,
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 03:54
and one that accepts the limits of the army and the limits of the use of weapons to achieve the strategic aims,
and accordingly a more modest approach to what can be achieved.
to manning, the warrior who longs for the war with Iran:
What about the aftermath of such an assault on Iran?
F.e. the MidEast oil shipping: Will the gas price in USA surge to 10 Dollars a gallon?
You want to sell to the people this war against Iran. Ok: But don't hide likely side effects like this!
And then: What will happen to US and global economy after a tripling of the barrel price?
What will happen to the Dollar?
You Americans risk your very neck when you will attack Iran - because of the economical side effects of this war.What will happen in Iraq?
The Shiites will be on Iran's side, turn against the US troops there. Cut the supply lines, probably. (So maybe it would be better to reduce the troops there, so that the smaller rest can still be supplied sufficiently in their bases from the air ...). US will have to ally with the Baathists and some Sunni Salafists ... just those who plant all these IEDs today ... and establish a new Sunni dictator in Iraq?What will happen in Iran during and after the assault on Iran?
There is a considerable part of Iranians who dislike the present Mullah regime, and who would prefer a more secular and liberal policy. But these people are nationalists, too, they love their country, and they will be coerced to side with the radicals, the Mullah regime - just to defend their home, their nation. The Iranians will rally around their leadership and radicalize. And find ways to revenge. (And, manning, you have learnt how vulnerable your power is to asymmetric strategies!)What will happen with US standing among the peoples and governments in the world?
It will continue to deteriorate. To a breaking point. And that will become costly, manning. You cannot go it alone successfully! Don't overestimate your strength, your power.What will happen in the USA, in terms of support of this war with Iran?
First, I suppose a surge in patriotic enthusiam and support for the government. Maybe long enough and intense enough so that a Republican candidate can profit in the election 2008.
But then, with all the negative effects of this escalation in the MidEast: Americans will demand to stop this fatal MidEast interventionism - if it still can be stopped.That will be the ultimate question. Can the spiral into global desaster be stopped?
You may not think of a nightmare following the assault on Iran, manning.
But why do you not?(I am German, live in Munich.)
Comment Posted By leo On 8.07.2007 @ 08:24
FIRING IMUS FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS
"a sure sign either in the efficacy of capitalism or that civilization is coming to an end."
Civilization is not coming to an end, before the beauty of knowing our Creator, there will be global suffering on a scale never imagined. Only then will mankind seek God in pureness of heart. It has always been the way of man to ignore and deny God untill there is a catastrophe, but in disaster, the best of mankind comes shining through; witness 9/11. The day of and the days follwing 9/11 found most people drawing togethor to help and comfort each other, but that has quickly disappeared and has been replaced by our self-serving bickering and petty differences. What we see and hear happening today is the result of an increasingly decadent and complacent society. The global ELE(extinction level event) will have it's roots from within man. It will take years to recover from this, not just days or weeks. Only after this will the likes of Imus, Stern and the rest, never be given a second to spew their hatred.
No, I am not some radical religous zealot, I pray and study The Bible, and do the best I can not to be married to this world, but to help where I can. I believe the constitution that says "the state shall not establish a religion."
Comment Posted By Leo On 12.04.2007 @ 12:19
SCANDAL HYSTERIA GRIPS THE CAPITOL
It's all beginning to look very ominous for America. I for one am tired of the constant barage of "tempest in teapot" nonstories. The Anna N. Smith nonstory was pounded to death. The left the right. No prayer in schools. No crucifixes at public cemetaries. Homosexual marriages. Homosexual adoption. Midnight porn addicts. Sex in the Oval office. I spilled coffee on my lap, sue McDonalds. A liar(lawyer) who ruined many a doctor and made millions on frivolous lawsuits running for president. And on and on.
Comment Posted By Leo On 16.03.2007 @ 21:33
Take a step back and observe...America really is on a downward spiral, and it's source is immorality. The only thing that will help us is a massive attack on American soil plunging us into a depression - gee, this is so much like the fall of Rome
