Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

werewolves

Blair Hints At Military Action For Iran

Recommended Posts

Dread to think. Iran isn't giving much room for the West to manouver, it could be brinkmanship but given the long history of dellusional leaders in the region who knows what will happen?

I'm off to dig me bunker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get to the economics of it...

There is NO means by which world oil demand can be met in the absence of supplies from Iran. No means whatsoever including the use of stock drawdowns (unless the interruption is brief).

If this leads to war then one of the first things which tends to happen in a country at war is that energy production collapses. If that happens then a major oil shock and consequent global recession are unavoidable.

Whether or not it happens I really don't know. But the consequences if it does are serious indeed. And that is to say nothing of the human and military aspects... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness

Who's going to do it though? Isn't the US army stretched thin at the moment? Wouldn't they need to bring back the draft to pull this off (not to mention the effect on the US's budget).

I don't think the UK could do it alone, despite it being TB making most of the noise at the moment.

Can anybody fill in the details for the above arguement (or shred it up and slam dunk it into the waste paper bin).

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just sabre rattling. Anyway it just isn't feasible with so much military resource poured into Iraq.

and we all know what sabre rattling leads to .

remember in August 2002 Tony Blair was telling his cabinet that war with Oraq was EXTREMELY UNLIKELY

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8/08/nirq08.xml

War with Iraq a long way off, Blair tells ministers 08/08/02

we all know what happened next .

I think they will attack Iran. Which is crazy as it will lead to WW3 . But im afraid the neo-cons and third-way socialists have formed a new Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and we will all suffer for it.

Of course its about oil and gas.

I wrote this letter to the editor of the independent today

Dear Sir

Like Tony Blair I too was appalled when the leader of

a sovereign

state

with nuclear ambitions called for attacks on a rival

sovereign state.

The difference being that I was appalled back in

November

2002 when Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post that

he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do'

list."" after Iraq had been dealt with.

This was while Tony Blair was still telling the

country

that war with Iraq was far from inevitable and he was

doing everything he could to "give peace a chance".

Should we now expect Mr Blair to work for the same

sort of "peaceful" outcome in Iran and if so on what

timetable ?

Regards

S______ MAC_______________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting take on the situation;

Iran's leader a political amateur

“It is a major political blunder and, given the international reaction, yet another reason for putting him on a leash,” an Iranian academic said yesterday.
“Ahmadinejad’s role has been very substantially reduced,” Professor Gary Sick, a professor of Middle East politics at Columbia University, said.

“He’s been in office for a hundred days. He’s done nothing. I think people are looking around and saying ‘This guy is a disaster’. I think they [the regime] are going to isolate him and quarantine him.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting take on the situation;

Iran's leader a political amateur

GS

Iran have been saying these things about Israel for the last 25 years .

all day , every day.

why the furore now ?

why the sudden shift of focus to IRAN as I and many others predicted before the IRAQ war ?

its obvious my friend.

we need their oil and gas and we cannot afford to have them sell it to China.

hence we will impose sanctions to ensure they only sell it to us at favourable terms.

then there may be a war if the IRANIANS doth protest too much.

they will defo have their nuke plants bombed by ISRAEL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even China and Russia do not want fundamentalists destabilising that region and world oil/economy with nuclear blackmail. Deals can be struck between the big powers and are - their relationships at an international trade/corporate/economic level are increasingly symbiotic.

There will be big ticket politics on a grand scale beforehand with lots of horsetrading but I think action by somebody against iran is inevitable in the next 5 years. It will need widespread international support though and will need some ingenious differentiation from the Iraq situation. I do not see an Iraq style invasion though - more strategic debilitating strikes.

Those who doubt this should see the Blair denunciation talk yesterday as significant. The US knows it cannot do another Iraq and I think we and other nations will be in the vanguard of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS

Iran have been saying these things about Israel for the last 25 years .

all day , every day.

why the furore now ?

Er, because Iran is close to getting nukes.

remember in August 2002 Tony Blair was telling his cabinet that war with Oraq was EXTREMELY UNLIKELY

No, that article says war was not inevitable or imminent. Which it wasn't. It was still seven months away at that time.

The difference being that I was appalled back in

November 2002 when Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post that

he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do'

list."

Why were you appalled at this? Perhaps Sharon said this because, as you've already said

Iran have been saying these things about Israel for the last 25 years .

So Sharon saying something needs to be done is eminently reasonable.

neo-cons and third-way socialists have formed a new Ribbentrop-Molotov

That's funny, I'd identified a new Nazi-Soviet pact. The extreme right, anti-Semitic reactionary Iranian leaders being the Nazis, and the Western lefties like you being the Soviets. United in hatred of the West.

they will defo have their nuke plants bombed by ISRAEL.

Yes, I agree that this would be the best solution all round. Peace will still have a chance as long as Iran's political leaders don't get nukes.

Or are you going to claim that Iran has a right to "energy security" from nuclear power. Ha ha!

Entrusting your energy security to nuclear power, which, over time is the most costly major energy source on earth even when the engineers get it right, is not necessarily very smart.

When Mr Putin, known to be moody, and a Russian nuclear industry with a crap record is your essential supplier, you're dumb. When you're also sitting on huge amounts of oil and gas, you're crazy, or bent on building a bomb, or both.

Yet your hatred of America has you arguing for a nuclear Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that this would be the best solution all round. Peace will still have a chance as long as Iran's political leaders don't get nukes.

Iraq did not have nukes and were happy to show the world that they did not have any nukes or plans for making them. yet they were not spared war,

why was that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But im afraid the neo-cons and third-way socialists have formed a new Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and we will all suffer for it.

Based upon the past performance of Bush2/Blair this is a distinct possibility.

Of course its about oil and gas.

...another distinct possibility.

"Iran's danger to America is not its nuclear program but its plan to introduce a euro-based energy exchange."

"One of the major unstated reasons the United States invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from trading oil for euros, which he had begun in 2000. Hussein actually made more money selling oil for euros, as the euro appreciated 17 percent against the dollar between 2000 and 2003. Other countries in the region, particulary Iran and Syria, began public musing about switching from dollars to euros around the same time.

All three countries were subject to a barrage of threats from the United States government, but only Iraq went through with the switch, and it was summarily invaded. One of the US government's first acts in Iraq was to switch oil sales back to dollars."

Ryan McGeal.

Here is a link to the full article; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9936.htm

Peace will still have a chance as long as Iran's political leaders don't get nukes.

Peace ? So you're not posting from Iraq then.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl

...they will defo have their nuke plants bombed by ISRAEL.

and that is why Israel are building a very big wall and bringing their people(some of them kicking and screaming) back behind it. When the wall is finished ie concrete - not just partially wire, and it is completely sealed. Then we can start to worry. The race is on to get it finished, before Iran gets nukes and before they attack Iran on America and our part. We are doing America's work by talking hard, and Israel will make the first strike. Hopefully most of our(Allied) troops will be out of Iraq and it will be another ally. Look at the map and as my freind Gundog said a few weeks ago it will be a classic pincer movement.

Of course this could just be a bunch of conspiracy nonsense. But when bush was talking of war with Iraq I was more concerned about where he would go next...as in Iran.

Then there is the 'end of time' loonies. They'll also be looking at the map and looking for key words and happenings in Revelations and other sources, normally people would just laugh at them. But these days they have freinds in high places.

So its all coming together. :ph34r: Can we say Armageddon... :o Maybe not but we are on and have been for a while very dangerous ground. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS

Iran have been saying these things about Israel for the last 25 years .

all day , every day.

why the furore now ?

why the sudden shift of focus to IRAN as I and many others predicted before the IRAQ war ?

its obvious my friend.

we need their oil and gas and we cannot afford to have them sell it to China.

hence we will impose sanctions to ensure they only sell it to us at favourable terms.

then there may be a war if the IRANIANS doth protest too much.

they will defo have their nuke plants bombed by ISRAEL.

As mentioned I guess the nuke take changes things a bit. Very odd situation, as I understand it, it's normally the religous part of Iran that calls for West/Israel to be destroyed only to be restrained by the political leadership. This time, it seems like the reverse.

Blessed and cursed by oil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for war was placed on a number of grounds. Some were "idealistic" (such as getting rid of a thug, spreading democracy, etc); some "selfish" or "realist" (secure the oil, prevent the tyrant from causing mayhem in the region, supporting terror), some based on justice (doing right by the Kurds, Shiites and Marsh Arabs whom we abandoned disgracefully after Gulf War 1.

Lots of reasons, not all of which hang together.

Example: Invading Iraq has always partly been about securing Iran's eastern border. The war launched against the west started in 1979 with the implementation of a theocratic state in Iran. It has continued unabated, Sept 11 being just one of many attacks over this period. Iran is the principal ideological inspiration, as well as the provider of materials and funds for the war against the west.

We are hopeful of establishing a democracy in Iraq and it looks like the Iraqis also want to get rid of the Saddam years. This would be a nice bonus. However the stage is now set for the most dangerous battle in the war against Islamic fascism. Those nations like Iran, or collections of refugees like the displaced arabs in the gaza strip and west bank, that do not make the right choice, face destruction. That is the way of the world, unpalatable though it sounds. History will judge it the correct move.

Perhaps Iraq can be construed as a "war for oil". The fault is in trivialising that aim as though it doesn't matter, that it's not a suitable pretext for war. It DOES matter. It IS worth going to war over if we feel its supply is threatened. We need to keep it flowing now and into the future. Our way of life depends on Middle Eastern oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Iraq can be construed as a "war for oil". The fault is in trivialising that aim as though it doesn't matter, that it's not a suitable pretext for war. It DOES matter. It IS worth going to war over if we feel its supply is threatened. We need to keep it flowing now and into the future. Our way of life depends on Middle Eastern oil.

refreshing honesty, why cant your political masters be as honest ?

they might find their level of support would be the same (about 50 % in the UK and US and about 1 % in Iraq).

that way I could argue honestly with them about wether or not going to war was the best way to get access to the oil etc etc

i think over the next few years those of us who said it was all about OIL AND GAS will be proved right and the debate will switch to that context,.

not that i think it will change US/UK policy any,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl

refreshing honesty, why cant your political masters be as honest ?

they might find their level of support would be the same (about 50 % in the UK and US and about 1 % in Iraq).

that way I could argue honestly with them about wether or not going to war was the best way to get access to the oil etc etc

i think over the next few years those of us who said it was all about OIL AND GAS will be proved right and the debate will switch to that context,.

not that i think it will change US/UK policy any,

I've had many debates with people over the causes of war in the past. My argument is that it is always over resources. People say its religion or freedom or oil or defence...but it always boils down to resources, and the control of them.

Resources= land, property, minerals, oil, food, water, sea, people (yes people...the greatest resource), drugs, salt, sugar, spice etc. Basically anything that can be turned into money will be argued over and fought over.

Then I've had debates with people who say that we are worse than animals and animals don't go to war. But although we may or may not be more intelligent than animals, basically that is what we are, and yes animals go to war over the same things. They have territories just like we do, and sometimes they will fight to the death over a scarce resource such as land and what is contained in it and water. I've watched cute little green tits in my garden attack another stranger green tit, because as far as they were concerned the berry tree was theirs. A family of chimpanzies in a forest have been known to systematically wipe out another family over a particular patch of forest. That would be called genocide if they were human.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Whether you are a few green tits in my garden, a family of chimpanzies in a forest, or a country of millions of people. You will protect at all costs your way of life, and that depends on your own resources and the resources you have access to.

This coming war if it happens is not just about oil, but about land and about people.

I suppose Bliar has to ask himself...who is the biggest TIT? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to do it though? Isn't the US army stretched thin at the moment? Wouldn't they need to bring back the draft to pull this off (not to mention the effect on the US's budget).

I don't think the UK could do it alone, despite it being TB making most of the noise at the moment.

Can anybody fill in the details for the above arguement (or shred it up and slam dunk it into the waste paper bin).

Cheers.

Bush seems to be losing poltical capital by the second. You have Kitrina, Exxon just realised their profits the "--biggest in US corporate history -- "

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/80953.asp

Bush was not able to get Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court.

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarti...ryID=nN28209289

A draft would be very unpopular in the US. Many Americans feel 'lied' to about Iraq. They gave GWB the benifit of the doubt, the war has gone on longer than most Americans expected, no WOMDs...Abu Ghraib...And 2,000 American service men dead. There has all ready been talk of a draft just for Iraq.

I don't see the US invaiding, or nuking Iran. UNLESS he manages to scare the crap out of the American people. Something I will admit he is good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my best guess

Iranian leaders say all sorts of things all the time. This latest one has been published to stoke anti Iranian feeling in the West. The policy of not recognising Israel is very old and not worthy of such a "shocked" response.

Iran will sell oil from around March next year in currencies other than the dollar (much the same as Iraq did a few months before the invasion). If they succeed in this then the value of the dollar will go down causing economic problems in the states. The US will use tactical nuclear strikes to force Iran into submission as they cannot win a land war outright.

The US may need to admit that the reasons for war are economic and selfish as the excuses they invent for wars become less and less feasible to the public.

China will object then dump all its dollars causing a further economic shock to the states and indeed every other economy.

Crivens! If I padded this out a bit it would have the makings of a worst seller.

;)

The sad thing is ... I believe the above hypothesis is a genuine possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl

Here is my best guess

Iranian leaders say all sorts of things all the time. This latest one has been published to stoke anti Iranian feeling in the West. The policy of not recognising Israel is very old and not worthy of such a "shocked" response.

Iran will sell oil from around March next year in currencies other than the dollar (much the same as Iraq did a few months before the invasion). If they succeed in this then the value of the dollar will go down causing economic problems in the states. The US will use tactical nuclear strikes to force Iran into submission as they cannot win a land war outright.

The US may need to admit that the reasons for war are economic and selfish as the excuses they invent for wars become less and less feasible to the public.

China will object then dump all its dollars causing a further economic shock to the states and indeed every other economy.

Crivens! If I padded this out a bit it would have the makings of a worst seller.

;)

The sad thing is ... I believe the above hypothesis is a genuine possibility.

I believe much of what you say is feasable. But I don't think America will strike first. I think Israel or someone else will. Then America will strike using the fact that an ally of theirs is being threatened. When really they are behind it. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to read portents of when we will invade Iran?

As I keep telling everyone we will not invade until we have built up the Iraqi Army to a good enough level to fight alongside the British Army.

If you can read this, thank a teacher,

If you are reading it in English, thank a Soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I at least had the sense to write that I was guessing. We will see what happens. If the U.S.A do not stike then the dollar will start to have a rough ride assuming Iran makes good its promise to sell oil in other currencies.

On how many times you are likely to read portents of the invasion, my best guess is 136. But it is just a guess. If you know the exact number then I would be incredibly interested to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to read portents of when we will invade Iran?

As I keep telling everyone we will not invade until we have built up the Iraqi Army to a good enough level to fight alongside the British Army.

If you can read this, thank a teacher,

If you are reading it in English, thank a Soldier

Were/are you in the forces, Gundog?

I was in the Scouts once! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.