Gunboat diplomacy
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-25 13:12:32)
"The page you tried was not found. You may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly, so please try again."
edit - Link is fixed, and Iran can go fuck themselves. The US is doinf the right thing imo.
edit - Link is fixed, and Iran can go fuck themselves. The US is doinf the right thing imo.
Last edited by Jenspm (2007-05-25 13:14:34)
try again
" I love the smell of nuclear in the morning"
The Iran situation has to be dealt with on a multi-national, political front, the U.S. can ill afford another quagmeyer right now.
volunteer military, citizen soldiers.
yall realize if the United States Army had, i dont know, say 2 more divisions, and the Marine Corps had another MEF (is that how your guys break em down) we wouldnt be hearing anything about "quagmeyers"
yall realize if the United States Army had, i dont know, say 2 more divisions, and the Marine Corps had another MEF (is that how your guys break em down) we wouldnt be hearing anything about "quagmeyers"
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-25 13:30:04)
Nice way to put it - Gunboat Diplomacy.It's the biggest American naval build-up in the gulf for years. A vast flotilla including three carriers are on military exercises in the waters off Iran.
Why aren't Russian, Chinese, French, UK Armed Forces building up in the region? Are we (the US) the only country that cares? Are we the only country perceiving this (Ahmadinejad/Iranian persistence on harnessing nuclear power) as a threat?The Americans are calling for tough international action and they want Russia and China to agree further sanctions.
Why not allow the UN inspectors in if it is peaceful? Surely Iran would love to have nuclear weapons, but is that seriously an imminent threat?The Iranians continue to claim their nuclear programme is peaceful, and today accused the US of manipulating the UN against them.
Would another war justified by UN resolutions be rational at this point? Why not share civilian nuclear technology with Iran?The nuclear issue is one of the few areas where Iran's president retains the support of his people. Inflation is pushing 30% - and - humiliatingly for one of the world's biggest oil producers - the country is having to introduce petrol rationing.
More foreign/military policy decisions that backfire in our (US Govt) face?With internal unrest building, many fear that US threats could play into the hands of President Ahmadinejad and other hard liners in Iran - bolstering his failing presidency by uniting the country behind him.
Wonder what the diplomats will talk about? Divvying up Iraq?Well some diplomatic engagement is set to take place - a historic meeting between US and Iranian diplomats is scheduled for Monday in Baghdad.
But the nuclear issue will not be on the agenda, and for diplomatic pressure to succeed - the US will need backing from countries that have failed to give it so far.
Ahmadinejad is desperately pushing the nuclear issue because he knows its the only way to elevate Iran to more powerful position against Israel. Israel has always held the power in the region because of the nuclear capacity. That allows them to push nations like Iran and Iraq around and keep them in their place. If Iran has nuclear weapons, suddenly Israel (and to a lesser extent the US) will loose it's powerful position.
In reality, Iran is years away from being anything close to a nuclear threat. Right now, the only real threat Iran could possibly produce is either A) 1 nuclear attack on Israel. This would most likely be met with a massive retaliation from the West.
B) Ahmadinejad funnels off a nuke to a terrorist group and they use it agaisnt a Western target. This can be combatted more easily my making it US foreign policy that if a nuclear weapon used by a terrorist group against the West, we will assume that they procured it from a rouge nation like Iran or North Korea, thus holding them responsible, and then act accordingly.
To be truly honest, if Ahmadinejad actual does manage to produce a nuke, there will of course have to be a test, which we will pick up on, and then it will be game over for Iran. The US will have enough evidence under international law to move in and eliminate the threat to peace. And since Iran will have used up it's one nuke, then it's game over. The US will purge the government, destroy the nuclear program, probably put anyone who knew anything in Gitmo, and set up another proxy government.
Seriously, do I have to do everything myself? Can't we just resurrect Dulles or something have have him do the work.
In reality, Iran is years away from being anything close to a nuclear threat. Right now, the only real threat Iran could possibly produce is either A) 1 nuclear attack on Israel. This would most likely be met with a massive retaliation from the West.
B) Ahmadinejad funnels off a nuke to a terrorist group and they use it agaisnt a Western target. This can be combatted more easily my making it US foreign policy that if a nuclear weapon used by a terrorist group against the West, we will assume that they procured it from a rouge nation like Iran or North Korea, thus holding them responsible, and then act accordingly.
To be truly honest, if Ahmadinejad actual does manage to produce a nuke, there will of course have to be a test, which we will pick up on, and then it will be game over for Iran. The US will have enough evidence under international law to move in and eliminate the threat to peace. And since Iran will have used up it's one nuke, then it's game over. The US will purge the government, destroy the nuclear program, probably put anyone who knew anything in Gitmo, and set up another proxy government.
Seriously, do I have to do everything myself? Can't we just resurrect Dulles or something have have him do the work.
id love to be a fly on that wall on 28 May when they meet.
It's amazing what a shitty domestic situation will do to your foreign policy.
Maybe another Battalion but a MEF would definitely work.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
volunteer military, citizen soldiers.
yall realize if the United States Army had, i dont know, say 2 more divisions, and the Marine Corps had another MEF (is that how your guys break em down) we wouldnt be hearing anything about "quagmeyers"
http://www.crowncombo.com/articles/2005 … eeka03.jpg
Well, since nobody seems to give the slightest shit that since the signing of the NNPT India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea got nuclear arms why the hell does everyone seem so bothered about Iran getting them?
Why get stroppy at Iran for trying to get Nuclear weapons while ignoring the fact that N. Korea ACTUALLY HAS ALREADY GOT THEM.
Why get stroppy at Iran for trying to get Nuclear weapons while ignoring the fact that N. Korea ACTUALLY HAS ALREADY GOT THEM.
I don't feel safe when Iran is getting nuclear power. Same with N.korea having it and have allready tested them underground.
Iran hasn't invaded anyone recently. Israel are already a nuclear armed country so they should be just fine to defend themselves. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have higher military spendings than Iran. Most of the world was together in telling the US and UK to 'keep a light touch' in the Middle East when they didn't support and actively criticized the invasion of Iraq. N. Korea has plentyful hatred towards the US, and the 'wipe Israel off the map' quote is a mistranslation. The aggressive moves of the US and UK in the Middle East have only served to enforce the idea that Iran needs nuclear weaponry to defend itself from them.rdx-fx wrote:
Because America gets concerned when a country's leader starts directly supporting the "death to America" groups, threatens to "push Israel into the ocean" or "Wipe Israel off the map".PureFodder wrote:
Well, since nobody seems to give the slightest shit that since the signing of the NNPT India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea got nuclear arms why the hell does everyone seem so bothered about Iran getting them?
Why get stroppy at Iran for trying to get Nuclear weapons while ignoring the fact that N. Korea ACTUALLY HAS ALREADY GOT THEM.
Pakistan and India have nukes, yes.
They spend the majority of their time glowering at each other over Kashmir.
Neither has expressed any large interest in anything other than defending their own interests and borders.
For all of his saber rattling and noise, Kim Jung Ill, Jr hasn't put troops into South Korea.
More importantly, South Korea and Japan have asked the US to 'keep a light touch' in the region.
If South Korea or Japan needs American help - they will get it.
Thirdly, if you think the Arabs are an implacable enemy when they 'put their war face on' - the orientals are downright vicious.
Forthly, Japan's SDF is, by any measure, one of the top 5 largest militaries in the world.
Between Japan, China, and South Korean - if North Korean does anything to really materially piss off any of those three - it's in for an amazing world of hurt.
India and Pakistan really don't like each other at all. India's Defense Minister replied that India could "take a bomb or two or more. .. but when we respond there will be no Pakistan."
I'm sure this has been said before here already, but here goes nothing....
We invaded Afghanistan.... then Iraq. Gee, I wonder what Iran is thinking when its two main neighbors have been conquered by us? Of course they're aiming for a nuclear program. I would too if I was running Iran.
Simply put, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah have shit a brick over the events of the last few years, so naturally, they're going to act like they're all big and bad to compensate for their fear.
In a way, you could say we did the same after 9/11.
Anyway, there really isn't much short of an invasion that we can do to stop their nuclear progress, and that would be an incredibly stupid move at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the fact that Iran has been exploiting the hell out of the chaos in Iraq by supporting terrorism, but countries like Syria and even Saudi Arabia have been doing the same. Whatever the case, we're spending a lot of wasted effort on Iraq and Iran while Afghanistan and Pakistan slowly deteriorate.
Essentially, we're not looking far enough east in our efforts.
EDIT: One last thing to keep in mind is that Muqtada is cunning enough to realize that Shias fighting each other (the Mehdi Army vs. the Iraqi government forces) makes for an excellent rationale for the U.S. to stay in Iraq. By recently discouraging fighting with the government, he is slowly moving toward his ultimate goal of having us withdraw.
I don't think it's a longshot to assume that Muqtada will soon be Iraq's Ayatollah.
We invaded Afghanistan.... then Iraq. Gee, I wonder what Iran is thinking when its two main neighbors have been conquered by us? Of course they're aiming for a nuclear program. I would too if I was running Iran.
Simply put, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah have shit a brick over the events of the last few years, so naturally, they're going to act like they're all big and bad to compensate for their fear.
In a way, you could say we did the same after 9/11.
Anyway, there really isn't much short of an invasion that we can do to stop their nuclear progress, and that would be an incredibly stupid move at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the fact that Iran has been exploiting the hell out of the chaos in Iraq by supporting terrorism, but countries like Syria and even Saudi Arabia have been doing the same. Whatever the case, we're spending a lot of wasted effort on Iraq and Iran while Afghanistan and Pakistan slowly deteriorate.
Essentially, we're not looking far enough east in our efforts.
EDIT: One last thing to keep in mind is that Muqtada is cunning enough to realize that Shias fighting each other (the Mehdi Army vs. the Iraqi government forces) makes for an excellent rationale for the U.S. to stay in Iraq. By recently discouraging fighting with the government, he is slowly moving toward his ultimate goal of having us withdraw.
I don't think it's a longshot to assume that Muqtada will soon be Iraq's Ayatollah.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-26 02:56:59)
msadr doesnt have the credentials necessary to be an ayatolla. they go by a strict discipline of islamic schooling and because of the death of his father he could no longer go farther up. he is essentially stuck at his position. all he does is ride the wave of his fathers good name
Well, if nothing else, Muqtada is a clever bastard.
I don't think I like him anymore than you do, but if he can put us in a position where Iraqis aren't fighting each other so much anymore (which would allow us to leave), then I say, "more power to him."
We need to get out one way or another, but it's only a matter of coincidence that he and I share the same goal in this.
I don't think I like him anymore than you do, but if he can put us in a position where Iraqis aren't fighting each other so much anymore (which would allow us to leave), then I say, "more power to him."
We need to get out one way or another, but it's only a matter of coincidence that he and I share the same goal in this.
Now you're starting to sound like a real Conservative!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
yall realize if the United States Army had, i dont know, say 2 more divisions, and the Marine Corps had another MEF (is that how your guys break em down) we wouldnt be hearing anything about "quagmeyers"
Seriously, you have no concept of the impossibility of succeeding against a locally affiliated insurgency, do you?
Playing RAM is so much better than BF2!
Bring it motherfucker! I'll be waiting in Tehran see if you can stop us from kicking your ass!
I dont understand why we cant just let iran have nuclear technology. I mean honestly, theres no way they can attack the US and theyre not supid. They dont want war with the US but if we provoke them then well...
All im saying is dont you think were being a bit pushy in that region? We invaded 2 countries and it looks like were going to invade a 3rd for what? Afghanistan, ok, Bin Laden was apparently there but we haven't found him.
Iraq-WMD's? Wtf??? There probably where never any WMD's to begin with. What were doing in the middle east is making every country be just like us. Now im all up in hands for democracy but honestly, you cant FORCE someone to become democratic. I dono, if we do go to war with Iran it'll be the end of the world as we know it.
All im saying is dont you think were being a bit pushy in that region? We invaded 2 countries and it looks like were going to invade a 3rd for what? Afghanistan, ok, Bin Laden was apparently there but we haven't found him.
Iraq-WMD's? Wtf??? There probably where never any WMD's to begin with. What were doing in the middle east is making every country be just like us. Now im all up in hands for democracy but honestly, you cant FORCE someone to become democratic. I dono, if we do go to war with Iran it'll be the end of the world as we know it.
There were WMDs in Iraq. During Gulf War 1 and the Iran-Iraq nonsense G.H.W. Bush and his mates gave Saddam sarin gas and some other nasty things. Just setting you straight there.farmerfez wrote:
I dont understand why we cant just let iran have nuclear technology. I mean honestly, theres no way they can attack the US and theyre not supid. They dont want war with the US but if we provoke them then well...
All im saying is dont you think were being a bit pushy in that region? We invaded 2 countries and it looks like were going to invade a 3rd for what? Afghanistan, ok, Bin Laden was apparently there but we haven't found him.
Iraq-WMD's? Wtf??? There probably where never any WMD's to begin with. What were doing in the middle east is making every country be just like us. Now im all up in hands for democracy but honestly, you cant FORCE someone to become democratic. I dono, if we do go to war with Iran it'll be the end of the world as we know it.
So, were there WMDs in Iraq this time around? I don't think so, or Saddam would probably have deplolyed them when the US invaded.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I'm not as concerned about N. Korea as Iran because N. Korea is kept in check by China sitting just above them. Iran doesn't have anyone bordering them to make sure they don't try anything. Plus Iran's government has a heavy relation with religion, which I don't find the most stable form of government.