IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 6




 
--
Boots
 
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
nice report , but it depends who is actually blaming for all the suffering, if its an iraqis then i think its normal
February 16th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 f**k about the Iraq population...it's just an excuse...or an investment, depending how you look at it.
Prosperous!? How is this war prosperous!? Billions of dollers spent on the military, on rebuilding, etc. Not to mention human loss. The oil infrastructure has been sieged, and continues to be on siege. Gas prices have never been higher. This war has done nothing but make America bleed, in terms of economy.

You'd be a fool to believe it merely "didnt work out as planned", even if no insurgency had occured, it still would have cost America much coin.

Even after 5 years, it still wouldn't be benificial to America economically, but boy, you know, must be that master plan to ensure American prosperity. Lord knows that's our legacy when we've used our military.
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
Choco,

The only investment that I can visualise is if the Iraqi oilfields are taken over through bids by US oil consortiums and the money is repatriated to the US.

Also in the event it is not so, then some arrangement where the oil surplus money gained is invested in US Bonds, as is the case with Saudi Arabia.

The other gain that the US might do, is possibly ensure that Iraq Oil is no longer traded in Euros but in Dollars.

Beyond that I wonder if there is any financial gain by the US in Iraq.
--
Boots
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Choco,

The only investment that I can visualise is if the Iraqi oilfields are taken over through bids by US oil consortiums and the money is repatriated to the US.

Also in the event it is not so, then some arrangement where the oil surplus money gained is invested in US Bonds, as is the case with Saudi Arabia.

The other gain that the US might do, is possibly ensure that Iraq Oil is no longer traded in Euros but in Dollars.

Beyond that I wonder if there is any financial gain by the US in Iraq.
US has underestimated iraqi resistance, otherwise, would u think US would go into iraq if they knew its so hard to handle? just like, why dun US go into russia due to chenchya? cos russia is hard to handle.
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
I don't think the US underestimated the Iraqi resistance.

They had simply not catered for it. (Enough material is available on the subject including the fact that the 'Exit' Policy was not formalised).

Not their fault actually. It is that too much of faith was put into the rosy scenarios painted by the Chalabis and Pachahis (the Iraqi exiles). This trust the US had placed on these rather unreliable people (Chalabi gave away the US to Iranians) is what has caused this sorry state.

However, the elections would bring stability provided the Sunnis and the AQ can be reined in.

The resistance in Iraq cannot be called Iraqi in its true sense. It is the Sunnis alone who are behind it. The Sunnis, who are the minority, has always ruled and so they are peeved at the thought of democracy being installed wherein the Shia majority will always call the shots in perpetuity.

The Sunni - Shia rivalry is a phenomenon which only those who have witnessed can only realise. It is highly intense.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
I don't think the US underestimated the Iraqi resistance.

They had simply not catered for it. (Enough material is available on the subject including the fact that the 'Exit' Policy was not formalised).

Not their fault actually. It is that too much of faith was put into the rosy scenarios painted by the Chalabis and Pachahis (the Iraqi exiles). This trust the US had placed on these rather unreliable people (Chalabi gave away the US to Iranians) is what has caused this sorry state.

However, the elections would bring stability provided the Sunnis and the AQ can be reined in.

The resistance in Iraq cannot be called Iraqi in its true sense. It is the Sunnis alone who are behind it. The Sunnis, who are the minority, has always ruled and so they are peeved at the thought of democracy being installed wherein the Shia majority will always call the shots in perpetuity.

The Sunni - Shia rivalry is a phenomenon which only those who have witnessed can only realise. It is highly intense.
i think US has underestimated Iraqi resistance, Bush always plead to have more funds and more men to be send to iraq, also asking for UK to increase its menpower too.

No, the election would not bring stablilty. when shia finish sunni off, shai is going to turn against US. shia is clever to rely on US to fight against sunni.

Iraq's hard-line Shi'ites vow to resist US agenda

(Reference: The following data is obtained from http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...agenda?pg=full)

The religious and political leaders are loosely allied with the militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and include supporters of Sadr's uprising in several cities last April. In recent days, including at prayer services yesterday, they vowed to use seats they expect to win in the Transitional National Assembly to demand a timetable for the departure of US forces.

Fatah al-Sheikh, seen as Sadr's most direct proxy in the political process, has also pledged to lead the opposition to Iraq's still unwritten new constitution. He also supports military resistance against US forces.

This burgeoning rejectionist wing is already exerting pressure on the United Iraqi Alliance, the mainstream Shi'ite coalition poised to command a majority in the new government. The Alliance has been busy fending off allegations by Iraqi secularists and some US officials that it is influenced by Iran and that it plans to push for an Islamic government. Its leaders are trying to position themselves as moderate modernizers, to assuage such fears.

But the more radical Shi'ite faction is launching a campaign against the Alliance, calling its members American stooges.

''We will be watching in the National Assembly to see who is truly representing the Iraqi people and who is acting as an American agent," Sheikh said this week.

Until recently, Sheikh was best known for editing a virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli newspaper published by Sadr's movement. His campaign slate was not officially endorsed by Sadr, but based on preliminary returns, Sheikh's group appears to be in a position to win at least six seats in the assembly.

Sheikh makes no secret of the brand of religious zeal, anti-Americanism, and Arab nationalism he would bring to the body...
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
The little that I know about the Iraq War, gleaned from my friends from Canada and the US, the resistance was not expected to this degree, resistance from Saddams men was expected, but not the type of organised resistance of the AQ terrorist breed. Therefore, what is being seen is just fait accompli..

The remainder of your post, though you do give a link (I could not open it), is rather an unfortunate commentary. If the Shias are also to put their finger in the terror generation pie, then I am afraid, they would have cooked their goose.

One thing that should have been obvious to the Iraqis of all hues is that the patience is not a very obvious virtue with the Americans. If still they wish to try the US out, it is their funeral.

I do hope better sense prevails.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
The little that I know about the Iraq War, gleaned from my friends from Canada and the US, the resistance was not expected to this degree, resistance from Saddams men was expected, but not the type of organised resistance of the AQ terrorist breed. Therefore, what is being seen is just fait accompli..

The remainder of your post, though you do give a link (I could not open it), is rather an unfortunate commentary. If the Shias are also to put their finger in the terror generation pie, then I am afraid, they would have cooked their goose.

One thing that should have been obvious to the Iraqis of all hues is that the patience is not a very obvious virtue with the Americans. If still they wish to try the US out, it is their funeral.

I do hope better sense prevails.
yes, well US cannot eradicate the whole middle eastern muslim population. its just a mystery how the heck US can actually destroy the so call terrorist from the earth? terrorists are basically freedom fighters, the more US invade, the more terrorist would be.
February 16th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Gingerbread, do you really believe that persons who target as a matter of tactics civilians i.e. women, children the elderly who we will call oh I don't know.........uh Terrorists yeah terrorist will work. Are actually freedom fighters
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Gingerbread, do you really believe that persons who target as a matter of tactics civilians i.e. women, children the elderly who we will call oh I don't know.........uh Terrorists yeah terrorist will work. Are actually freedom fighters
i have heard women has been doing a self destruction thing before. but how many young men are there in the middle east? and US call those iraqi resistance terrorists, but are tehy really? they are just fighting to free their homeland.

then when another attack done in US soil, by iraqis, then u would call them terrorists, but that's just the same as US attacking iraq and claiming its oil and land. so US are the "terrorist" in iraq.

u got to know, they are fighting in iraq is to fight US off. US is gd at labeling resistance fighters as terrorists.