IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 5




 
--
Boots
 
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
Okay guys, it's 5 in the morning here... and I have to go and see if my patients are still alive ( ) ... I'll come back soon and hope to find open-minded reactions then. Have a good day everybody

Post Scriptum: Ginger, i like your point of view, you're not under brain-control, that's becoming so rare...

...and moderators: you see, this is a real interesting discussion. Try to be more lenient... c ya!
February 16th, 2005  
CO5060.20
 
Boys and girls, this is turning into a flamer. We need to stop this now, or we all risk getting banned. I do respect what you all are trying to do, and I can see you all believe in what you are saying. We need to get back to the facts and no more of this "They disobeyd the UN. So... maybe one day China will attck the USA and say "ya know, they attacked many countries with no authorization of the international community, they are terrorists... " .. That would be funny, heh?" Because then we all may find our selves kicked off. I for one like this forum and choose to stay. We shall continue this tomorrow, I am required to sleep (I'd rather be drilling). Any who, I do wish to conitnue this but tomorow... Have a good night!

P.S. I wish you all the luck in the world and remember "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
- General George Patton Jr
February 16th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE IRANIAN
Yes, Ginger you're right to ask that... how many UN rules were forgotten by USA ChocoBlitzer??? .... in fact if France, Russia and Germany haven't followed the USA, it was because the USA did not wait for the UN council decision... they attacked Iraq because tehy had decided to do so. What's the UN? The democracy over the world. What did teh USA do? They disobeyd the UN. So... maybe one day China will attck the USA and say "ya know, they attacked many countries with no authorization of the international community, they are terrorists... " .. That would be funny, heh?
Because the US waited so long, a guarilla resistence was prepared for the coming invasion. Ask Al Zarqawi. The UN was not doing it's job, so the US, GB, and the coalition took matters into their own hands. Yes, and I'm proud of it.

Though, it's a bit hard trying to explain this to someone who finds a perverse pleasure in the idea of America being attacked.
--
Boots
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
Cxxxxxx : I disagree with you but apart from this all, you are the only one american guy here who continued the discussion and tried to understand my point of view... and that's a honour's man attitude. I like it. Full respects. C ya soon (maybe tomorrow, not sure)...
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
Choco_blitzer: and it's very very very hard to explain what war means to some guys that have not been in my case, escaping Iran-Irak war with my parents who had lost everything, while you were delightfully eating your hamburgers... and some years later understanding that the real reason for wars in the middle-east is oil and world economy... by the way, I'm saving lives today, and I don't dream about attacks in any country... try to make your brains work on it for our next meeting...

Mod Edit: If I see another post containing an insult or even a hint of an insult directed at another member of this board, you will be removed.
February 16th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE IRANIAN
Choco_blitzer: and it's very very very hard to explain what war means to some guys that have not been in my case, escaping Iran-Irak war with my parents who had lost everything, while you were delightfully eating your hamburgers... and some years later understanding that the real reason for wars in the middle-east is oil and world economy... by the way, I'm saving lives today, and I don't dream about attacks in any country... try to make your brains work on it for our next meeting...
This sage wisdom that you've aquired, that all wars on middle-east soil are merely for the flow of oil, is exceptionally narrow. Not because the prospect of strategic oil goals is out of the question, but because you treat all other goals i've presented with apathy. Your past, if anything, could harm your objectivity regarding wars. Not to mention, your condensation to my nationality doesn't help your character here.
February 16th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
one thing i ve learned from being in this world (i have not been to heaven yet, maybe very different), is that i cannot blame others for doing something horrible or weird (according to my opionion) for their own benifit or survival....

perhaps u can say U.S invaded iraq or doing other "horrible" stuff in the world....but i think U.S government does that for their own ppl's safety and prosperity......

u cannot expect others to give up on themselves and help u, especially this come up to a level of international politics......which usually relate to the welfare of millions of ppl or the survival of the whole nation...

so Iranian guy, dont expect to talk U.S off about going to Iraq or going to Iran in the future, unless Iran presents no threat for U.S anymore, U.S will gonna take care of Iran someday even if bearing the name of "invader" (again?).....
February 16th, 2005  
rOk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexybeast
perhaps u can say U.S invaded iraq or doing other "horrible" stuff in the world....but i think U.S government does that for their own ppl's safety and prosperity......
You see that's the whole point of all of this...they want to ensure the safety and prosperity of their own people(which of course is understandable...I'd have the same goal) while assuring the rest of us they are doing this for democracy.
I don't think Bushy, Rummy and Condy give a **** about the Iraq population...it's just an excuse...or an investment, depending how you look at it.
February 16th, 2005  
Redleg
 
 
THE IRANIAN has been given a 3 day temporary ban.
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
Iranian,

The points you raise are valid, when one looks at it from one's own country's view.

However, if that be the case, then the US is also entitled to view it from its national point of view.

To many, this would appear unilateralism and hegemonic.

With the collapse of the USSR, US became the ONLY global superpower. Yet, there were 'challengers' lurking in the corner e.g. even Russia (once they stabilise) and China (Read the NIC 2020 Report).

Obviously, this is not in the interest of the US.

To ensure supremacy in perpetuity, it is in the interest of the US to:

1. Defend the US homeland;
2. Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars;
3. Perform the ‘constabulary’ role associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.

Oil is a major factor. Read up on the Peak Global Oil (in essence it means while one barrel is discovered, the consumption is four barrel; i.e. oil is a vanishing commodity). True, much has been written about Alternate Energy, but till now there has been no economical alternate fuel made. Therefore, oil becomes a key strategic weapon.

The country that controls (or influences) oil, control the global economy and, in turn, controls the world.

Therefore, the US is interested in the Central Asian Republics, Venezuela, West Africa and even Iran. The US in this context was also not too pleased with the Yukos (Russia) issue.

A small digression: the events in Ukraine, Georgia, CAR is pertinent, since it weans away these countries from Russia's influence and from the Russian point of view, it is taken to be an attempt to stifle Russian power.

Back to to Oil. The testimony of the Unocal representative to the Congress on the Caspian Oil areas is interesting. In fact, the complete proceedings are.

This Caspian Oil areas hold huge untapped hydrocarbons. Two US Consortium are already in action there. The problem is how to transport the oil free of Russian influence as also economically.

The European Market is appreciated to be near stagnation. The Chinese and Indian markets are on the upswing and will continue for a long time. Their oil requirements will be collosal and hence the companies that own such oil will reap a rich harvest, and, in turn, fill the cofferes of the countries backing them since the money will be repatriated to those countries.

How can this oil be transported cheaply? The cheapest way is through Iran. Next is through Afghanistan onto Pakistan and to the Gwadar Port. Thereafter, come the option to the Turkish port through a couple of countries and lastly the western alignment.

Why is Iran so important? The Caspian area has Azeris and so does Iran. And as per the testimony, Iran is the 'natural leader' of that area. Therefore, the present fundamentalist govt of Iran is not the best of situation for the US. Therefore, like Saddam was no longer of use to the US (as he was in the 1980s) and so he had to go, the present religious govt of Iran too, from the US strategic perspective, also has to go.

Let's look at the 'War on Terror'. It is basically against 'terrorists' and 'WMD' and making the world safe.

I don't think anyone can refute that these are goals all would like to be fulfilled. After all, these two factors do impinge on the lives of all in the world.

Interestingly, the only nation that subscribe to these two issues is Pakistan.

1. They have WMD officially; as also the delivery systems in the form of missiles as also planes.

2. The 'terror factories' of the Taliban and AQ took birth in Pakistan and are still continuing to churn new 'warriors of Islam' by the 100s.

And yet the US is tolerant to Pakistan and are even selling sophisticated weapon systems.

Paradoxical? Not really.

Remember the oil pipeline through Afghanistan and the future economic boom if this line goes through? If Pakistan get antagonised, then this pipeline will be a pipedream! Obviously, it is not in the US interest.

Yet, now come an new input - the serious unrest in Balochistan. Even as I write, the US Ambassador is meeting the Balochi leaders to discuss the issue. There is a school of thought: now that the US is tired of pandering to Pakistan (and constantly worried about the Islamist but powerful opposition political alliance of Pakistan) , a new nation called Balochistan would possibly a better option. But this is just speculation and a 'could know' factor. The frenzy of teh Pakistan newspapers in asking Musharraf to bring in democracy in its actual forms suggests that Pakistan is equally worried that the Balochistan issue could go the Bangladesh way.

That is how most simplistically one could view the issue.

Therefore, to blame the US for all the sufferings of the world is not really fair. They do what they do for their national interest, as would any other country.

Therefore, if one puts emotions aside, one can see things beyond the fog, or at least think that he is seeing it beyond the fog, the reality will dawn.