PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again, Iran this time.


John Hill
24th Nov 2013, 18:19
Iran Agreement Reached With US Over Nuclear Programme... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9436761/Arab-states-quiet-on-Iran-nuclear-deal)
Iran and six world powers reached a breakthrough agreement on Sunday to curb Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for limited sanctions relief, in a first step towards resolving a dangerous decade-old standoff.

The deal between the Islamic state and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia was nailed down after more than four days of negotiations.

A bunch of nuclear weapons states has made an agreement that they have no intention of keeping and Iran will use their failure to do so as justification to continue on with the activity this agreement is supposed to stop. October 21, 1994 all over again.:rolleyes:

sitigeltfel
24th Nov 2013, 18:32
For all the rhetoric, this deal is purely a face saving compromise by the current group of nuclear states to delay the inevitable.

Their only concern is that it does not happen on their watch, and have merely postponed the day when Iran lights up the Middle East.

West Coast
24th Nov 2013, 19:11
Cheers everyone, peace for our time!

SpringHeeledJack
24th Nov 2013, 19:26
Their only concern is that it does not happen on their watch, and have merely postponed the day when Iran lights up the Middle East.

What have the generally astute Persians (despite some rhetoric) got to gain from using nuclear weapons unless attacked ? I would suggest none. What have they got to gain from having nuclear weapons as a deterrent ? More than most in the region. As to how that might affect Middle East politics, the answer is blowing in the wind.



SHJ

west lakes
24th Nov 2013, 19:31
Seems to me it's a solution to a problem, the UK is trying to work out what to do with the 120tonne of Plutonium it has at Sellafield!

Share it out round the ME and let them all get into a huge standoff!
:\:ooh:

West Coast
24th Nov 2013, 19:38
If the Scott's go their own way leaving the UK without a port, perhaps your lot can donate your missile boats to the Iranians for safe keeping. Look how well it worked out for Iraq's AF.

John Hill
24th Nov 2013, 19:44
SHJ wrote
What have they got to gain from having nuclear weapons as a deterrent ? More than most in the region.

Careful SHJ, the bovver boys will be along soon to point the finger at you for supporting public stoning of female adulterers. :bored:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
24th Nov 2013, 20:49
Iran nuclear deal gets 'deeply skeptical' response from Canada - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-deal-gets-deeply-skeptical-response-from-canada-1.2438467)

I'm with Siti, and, strangely, my Government.

racedo
24th Nov 2013, 21:53
Wonder when the discussion will be with Israel regarding its Nukes............:rolleyes:

JeroenC
24th Nov 2013, 22:53
First time I agree with you Racedo!

Nervous SLF
24th Nov 2013, 22:55
Wonder when the discussion will be with Israel regarding its Nukes............:rolleyes:


I would guess that it would be at the same time that "the meek shall inherit the earth"

PTT
24th Nov 2013, 23:15
Why would there be a discussion with Israel? :confused:

Sallyann1234
24th Nov 2013, 23:18
A deal lasting six whole months. That's OK then. :ugh:

West Coast
24th Nov 2013, 23:46
Israel doesn't have nukes as far as you can prove.

PTT
24th Nov 2013, 23:47
Doesn't matter if they do: they're not signatory to any treaty saying they can't have them.

piperboy84
25th Nov 2013, 00:04
PTT

Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
Doesn't matter if they do: they're not signatory to any treaty saying they can't have them.



Well hell, what are we doing paying all those big Swiss hotel bills for all those big shot foreign ministers to talk about enrichment when all the Iranians had to do is drop out of the NPT then there is nothing to discuss

PTT
25th Nov 2013, 00:08
They could have. North Korea did 10 years ago.

Cacophonix
25th Nov 2013, 00:12
John until you have killed Americans by putting grenades between their arse cheeks...

They squawk just like girls...

Caco

SASless
25th Nov 2013, 00:53
Where's all the adoring crowds cheering for our Welfare Man?

The Welfare Man sends Lurch, who served in Vietnam as you may recall, to negotiate with Iranians.....now what could ever go wrong with a deal like that?:ugh::uhoh::{:mad:

The Sultan
25th Nov 2013, 02:12
SAS

As long as no Americans were injured or killed and no tax dollars are wasted sounds like everyone (except Bibi) wins. Bibi should remember their military has killed more US servicemen than Iran's.

Remember the Liberty.

The Sultan

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 02:36
No, Iranian IEDs killed a lot more Americans, and they have yet to pay for it.

obgraham
25th Nov 2013, 02:51
I see the usual suspects, along with the media, desperate for some sort of agreement, are heaping praise on this accord -- without taking any time to investigate the details, and the unintended consequences. Which will inevitably occur.

sitigeltfel
25th Nov 2013, 07:57
Cheers everyone, peace for our time!

Obamerlain

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/obamerlain-2.jpg

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 09:50
So basically we had three options, namely do nothing, negotiate, or bomb the b*stards. Sounds like we chose the right one.

Personally, I am cautiously optimistic that Iran will, with Rouhani at the helm, be slowly bought in from the cold, if, alongside this development, we could persuade the country to ease off the rhetoric on Israel, and stop supporting the likes of Hezbollah.

I sense the Saudis are sh*t scared that Iran will be seen increasingly as the country to do business with and maybe even eventually the voice of reason/moderation in the region. They're probably more worried about this than them getting a nuke.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 09:54
the UK is trying to work out what to do with the 120tonne of Plutonium it has at Sellafield

Err, I think you're find that none of this stuff is of the right grade (O as opposed to A). I should know...

Fliegenmong
25th Nov 2013, 10:20
A place up the road sells tins of Ghormeh Sabzi imported from Iran...just add your own lamb!....Damn good stuff it is too!

I'll watch for any cans that glow green...

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 12:30
The Saudis are getting proper vexed over this:

Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html)

Intriguing that, unlike the Saudis, its erstwhile allies in the Gulf have cautiously welcomed the deal.

Fliegenmong
25th Nov 2013, 13:11
Pretty much all of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi dead_pan.....I feel the Saudis should feel the wrath of US justice....yet last time I was in the US I saw Aussie Boeing Wedgetails being prepared alongside Saudi variants....:sad::{

Blacksheep
25th Nov 2013, 13:24
Nations thinking of developing and owning their own nuclear bombs should bear in mind that it automatically makes them first-strike nuclear targets for the big boys.

The USA has enough in their (reduced) stockpile to make a glass car park out of Iran or Pakistan - and still have enough left to maintain a credible deterrent in the big boys' club.

PTT
25th Nov 2013, 14:32
I'm not sure if that is meant as a threat, Blacksheep, but it's rather an odd comment. Of course these nations realise that, and they also realise that the possession of nuclear weapons will reduce the appetite for "gunboat diplomacy" (or cruise diplomacy) from those "big boys", increasing their political clout through military capability, thus enabling regional political ambitions.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 14:46
Pretty much all of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi dead_pan

Indeed. They're also the primary (sole?) sponsors of all those Madrassahs spouting all that Salafist/Wahhabi cr*p. In the grand scheme Iran is positively benign in comparison.

AtomKraft
25th Nov 2013, 14:52
Indeed, dead pan. But they've got OIL, which means it's ok.:ok:

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 14:56
Luckily, so have Iran, our soon-to-be best friends in the region :ok:

Actually, I wonder if Vlad the Impaler will be happy with the way the oil price is heading ATM? Maybe he'll try and scupper the deal somehow.

No one wants Russia to implode but optimists have their work cut out - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/10471423/No-one-wants-Russia-to-implode-but-optimists-have-their-work-cut-out.html)

airship
25th Nov 2013, 14:57
So, let me get this straight.

Many here are complaining about the recent "deal" concluded with Iran in Switzerland over the past weekend as conclusion to many negotiations in the weeks/months before...?!

The Israelis are unsurprisingly, very unhappy about it all. Yet, they haven't so far, been asked to dismantle their own very real nuclear arsenal and capabilities. The technologies and materials mostly supplied to Israel by many of the countries directly involved in recent negotiations over Iran's merely assumed wish to acquire a 1st nuclear bomb, let alone an arsenal consisting of several hundreds of warheads, as in the case of Israel. I offer as an analogy the US military's "Don't ask, don't tell" doctrine and interim solution before homo-sexuals and lesbians were finally allowed to serve in their military openly. Noone's (yet) asking Israel to admit that they possess an important nuclear arsenal. But if Isreal continues to complain unrealistically, embarrassing questions over the provenance of that arsenal will eventually have to be asked and replied to.

The problem (I sometimes share this) is that some countries and their politicians just don't know when to "shut-up" and merely go pinch oranges from Palestinian orchards for awhile...?! :rolleyes:

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 15:00
I'm sure Israel can be placated with a few more F35s or whatever toys they're after from Uncle Sam's inventory. Christmas may come early for them this year - oh, hang on, I forgot...

obgraham
25th Nov 2013, 17:42
So Airship, again let me understand:

Your reasoning is that Iran shouldn't be prohibited from nuclear bombs because Israel has them.

Just which of those two has continually threatened to eliminate the other?

fitliker
25th Nov 2013, 17:51
Interesting that someone would bring Chamberlain into the debate.
Chamberlain done his duty for his country and bought time for Britain to build weapons to defend itself with. He took a lot of ridicule for years about it ,but without him, Britain would have not of had enough time to build the weapons to defend Britain. Neville Chamberlain was a great man and he put his countries safety ahead of his own pride. Some called him an appeaser, but he was a pragmatist and a real Hero.

This new nuclear agreement buys time for the Iranian secret weapons programme of the Iranians to run its course. Although you would have to be stupid to think that the only bombs being built are being built deep underground in Iranian mountains. You could hide a facility like that in Nevada quite easily. It would not be easy to spot the radiation of new weapons amongst the old fallout from the old weapons testing sites.
There are other hot spots that could hide a secret bomb building factory in North America, so while some people are distracted by the magicians assistant, they might miss the magic being done by the magician.

Persians have a long history of tunneling and magic ,pay attention or you will miss the magic :}

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 17:52
And Israel has elections where their many Arab citizens get to vote and elect representatives. Is there anywhere in the Muslim world where that courtesy is reciprocated?

Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty because, having experienced the Holocaust, they knew they were ultimately on their own to prevent it ever happening again. Iran's government has explicitly called for Israel's destruction. How can any sentient person not understand Israel's determination to keep Iran from attaining the means to destroy it.

By the way, when all things come to pass, I'm betting on Israel.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 18:31
Is there anywhere in the Muslim world where that courtesy is reciprocated?

Iran?

I fully appreciate Israel's circumspection regarding this deal given relatively recent events, however I do wonder if Rouhani is taking Iran in a new, less confrontational direction? They're not fools and must realise that any confrontation with Israel is not going to end well for them. Also, the country is in a mess economically and, having seen the huge political upheavals in the region over the past few years, the must also realise that their youthful population won't wait forever for their lot to improve.

That said, I'm really enjoying seeing the Saudi regime twist and turn on this one - it must be driving them crazy.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 18:37
After the Geneva deal, was Iran's nuclear programme worth all that pain? ? Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100247608/the-geneva-deal-has-exposed-the-wastefulness-of-irans-keystone-cops-nuclear-operation/)

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 18:42
They're not fools

You sure?

And who are the Jewish members of Iran's legislature?

As for the Saudis, I agree. They turn from their US alliance at their own risk. They've thought they are more important than they are for far too long if you ask me. And we don't need the oil we dug up for them anymore.

The Wahhabi spew funded by Saudi Arabia is reason enough to say to them, "Find your own friends." Do they think Russia is more receptive given Saudi-funded restiveness in the Caucasus? Israel may be their only true friend in terms of interests.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 19:02
You sure?

Anyone who lived in Glasgow for a couple of years can't be all bad. Hopefully he'd have taken in an Old Firm footie match and witnessed real religious intolerance.

They turn from their US alliance at their own risk.

I'm actually surprised you guys have hung in with them for so long. I mean, they represent the very anti-thesis of American values (apart from their love of cars).

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 19:06
For the last 40 years the Saudis played a key role in the stability of the world, which the US saw until recently to be in its fundamental interest to maintain.

We're handing off that fundamental interest with some significant alacrity in case you haven't noticed. If China or the EU or the Russians don't grab that baton, it may just flutter to the ground. Who cares?

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:11
Indeed, dead pan. But they've got OIL, which means it's ok.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

If you think that US is self sufficient in Oil and will be for a long while, the Middle Easter Oil producers have screwed the west for last 10 years and it seems that a natural realignment is taking place.

Funny watching some of the countries who assummed they had power because of oil being outflanked and they realising they have little except Western arms to threaten people. Wonder will that software work when you want it to :E

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:14
So Airship, again let me understand:

Your reasoning is that Iran shouldn't be prohibited from nuclear bombs because Israel has them.

Just which of those two has continually threatened to eliminate the other?

Who do you worry more about ?

A dog that barks or one that doesn't ?

brickhistory
25th Nov 2013, 19:14
Chamberlain done his duty for his country and bought time for Britain to build weapons to defend itself with.


But it seems the Czechs paid the price for that time. I don't recall your hero Chamberlain consulting them before sacrificing them.



Looks like Obama/Kerry are willing to have Israel pay for it this time.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:16
No, Iranian IEDs killed a lot more Americans, and they have yet to pay for it. Really

Thought most US soldiers died in Sunni areas of Iraq that Shia areas...............so if Shias were not supplying Sunni's then who was ? Their Sunni neigbour next door per chance ?

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:19
And Israel has elections where their many Arab citizens get to vote and elect representatives. Is there anywhere in the Muslim world where that courtesy is reciprocated?


Jews in Iran have not been persecuted even after 1979..............They have a member of parliment guaranteed by constitution.

Christians in Iran do not appear to feel they are under threat of elimination either.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:22
You sure?

And who are the Jewish members of Iran's legislature?

Jewish Iranian MP lauds country's religious freedom | The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-iranian-mp-lauds-countrys-religious-freedom/)

Course the newspaper is biased.

MP guaranateed by Constitution.

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 19:26
They both were. US soldiers were caught in the middle; they died trying to establish a peaceful, democratic government.

IEDs, ambushes, mass killings of innocents - all of these were generated by both Sunnis and Shias. To our credit, the allied forces trying to establish a civilized Iraqi polity never resorted to the tactics of barbarians.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 19:29
IEDs, ambushes, mass killings of innocents - all of these were generated by both Sunnis and Shias. To our credit, the allied forces trying to establish a civilized Iraqi polity never resorted to the tactics of barbarians.

Serious question.
Who is to judge that ?

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 19:34
Looks like Obama/Kerry are willing to have Israel pay for it this time.

Tell me, what would you have preferred them to do - order an all-out pre-emptive strike on the country? I'll wager you were one of the ones complaining bitterly back in September when an attack on Syria looked to be on the cards. These guys just can't do anything right, can they?

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 19:42
US soldiers were caught in the middle

Err, they weren't exactly impartial, were they, especially right at the beginning? Also, they weren't exactly there at the request of the Iraqi people.

tactics of barbarians

I admit it was a tad unfortunate the various militias and insurgents didn't have body armour, Humvees, air cover etc etc, so they could have engaged in you in a fair fight.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2013, 19:46
I admit it was a tad unfortunate the various militias and insurgents didn't have body armour, Humvees, air cover etc etc, so they could have engaged in you in a fair fight.

A fair fight? What a crock of bullshit that is.

So I suppose they just went at the allied forces with sticks and stones, eh?
Nope, no such thing as IED's. No such things are RPGs. No such thing as AK-47 or AK-74's. No such things as mines (out the yazoobie), no such thing as T-72 tanks, BMP fighting vehichles, ZSU-234 AA guns, etc. Nope, there was none of that.

An fair fighting doesn't entail shoot and pray then run the other way. Like friggin' cowards the lot of 'em are.

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 19:53
They were quite good at killing shoppers in marketplaces by the hundreds, and religious people from the opposite sects on their way to pray.

Astounding that some of us, supposedly civilized, endorse those tactics as legitimate, justified by not having high-tech, rich army technology.

Tell you what, though, you apologists for murderers of non-belligerents, if I am ever reduced to resistance, and only have my small arms at hand, I would never take the life of an innocent, even if he/she is from the tribe of my enemy.

Does that make me better? Indeed it does.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 20:02
They were quite good at killing shoppers in marketplaces by the hundreds, and religious people from the opposite sects on their way to pray.

Astounding that some of us, supposedly civilized, endorse those tactics as legitimate, justified by not having high-tech, rich army technology.

Tell you what, though, you apologists for murderers of non-belligerents, if I am ever reduced to resistance, and only have my small arms at hand, I would never take the life of an innocent, even if he/she is from the tribe of my enemy.

Does that make me better? Indeed it does.

So Ben laudable statements...........

However do you condemm drone attacks on innocent people, decided and acted on by people thousands of miles away sitting in an air conditioned room in where ever ?

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 20:08
I was talking about how they engaged your/our forces. My point was, given the circumstances their tactics were perfectly understandable. Hell, if we'd just been invaded and were similarly outgunned I'm sure we too would have resorted to terror tactics to turn the tables on our enemy (I'm sure your infantry or E&E manuals contained various little hints and tips).

BTW I echo racedo's comment about moral equivalency - all methods of killing in conflict are barbarous.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 20:10
I'm glad someone else mentioned drone attacks. Wouldn't like to sound like a broken record.

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 20:15
However do you condemm drone attacks on innocent people

Unequivocably. But I endorse them on legitimate enemy targets.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 20:17
An fair fighting doesn't entail shoot and pray then run the other way.

Again, perfectly understandable given the circumstances (and what is about to come their way). Live to fight another day and all that.

Like friggin' cowards the lot of 'em are.

I wouldn't classify many of them as cowards, I'm afraid. Far from it. And before you get your fanny in a twist, I am in no way condoning their actions.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 20:21
Unequivocably. But I endorse them on legitimate enemy targets.

But what level of collateral damage would you be prepared to accept to get your man? Ten civilians, twenty? What's the going rate in Pakistan ATM?

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2013, 20:25
racedo:

Innocent people are indeed killed by drone attacks. It is most unfortunate when that happens. However, these innocent people are not targeted by the drone operator, oh so far away. This happens when said innocent people happen to be in the area of the "bad guys."

Again, innocent people are not deliberately targeted by drones, by Western military forces, etc.

However, radical Islam has this litle tendancy to make a statement by doing just that: deliberately targeting innocent people.

At the end of the day, dead is dead whether or not you were targeted specifically, I'll give that. However, it's the intent behind which separates those who do harm to innocents deliberately, from those who do no such thing.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2013, 20:30
Don't worry about my getting my fanny in a twist: I have my Depends on today. :}

The vast majority of Iraqi forces, insurgents et al. were, and still are, cowardly. They do not stand and fight. (Just like their brethren across the great divide: the skinnies of Mog, Somalia) They fire a few rounds, toss a few grenades, fire a few canon shots, etc. and then, after doing so, high tail it the other way.

I'll give the Taliban more credit than the average Iraqi regular forces, or insurgent, or terrorist, in that the former will indeed stand and fight. The latter? Not so much.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 20:51
Meanwhile, back at the thread:

Iran nuclear deal shows US is now prepared to act independently of allies | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/iran-us-shift-middle-east-alliances)

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 20:54
What have the generally astute Persians (despite some rhetoric) got to gain from using nuclear weapons unless attacked ? I would suggest none. What have they got to gain from having nuclear weapons as a deterrent ? More than most in the region.
I am with SHJ on this one. If the useless bags of pig feces in Pakistan have nukes, why can't pretty much anyone have them?

As to some other comments:
Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own. Buy American. :ok:
I'm actually surprised you guys have hung in with them for so long. I mean, they represent the very anti-thesis of American values (apart from their love of cars). Politics make for strange bedfellows, eh?
Nations thinking of developing and owning their own nuclear bombs should bear in mind that it automatically makes them first-strike nuclear targets for the big boys. Yep.
Hello, our dear frineds in Iran, welcome to the "you are now a target" club." You put yourself there. Sleep well. :p
But it seems the Czechs paid the price for that time. I don't recall your hero Chamberlain consulting them before sacrificing them. Looks like Obama/Kerry are willing to have Israel pay for it this time. Sucks not to be a world power, doesn't it? I figure the Brits are soon to understand that in a profound way in the next few decades.
Thought most US soldiers died in Sunni areas of Iraq that Shia
areas...............so if Shias were not supplying Sunni's then who was ? Their Sunni neigbour next door per chance ?
That is neighbours, plural, my friend. Willing Sunni came from all over the Umma to fight multiple enemise: Shia, Americans and coalition partners, other Sunni who were splitters ... you might say that the best thing W ever did for the Arab Muslim world was to expose it as a place where the enjoyment of intramural homicide is endless.
Fig leaf? gone. The Truth shall set you free.
They were quite good at killing shoppers in marketplaces by the hundreds, and religious people from the opposite sects on their way to pray. Still are good at it, read the news: a few go off each week. It's a booming business. Note: a double pun was intended.
But what level of collateral damage would you be prepared to accept to get your man? Ten civilians, twenty? What's the going rate in Pakistan ATM?
Not enough. Make it dangerous to be around the assholes, and the assholes will eventually lrun out of friends and families. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of pig feces.
As for our dear friends in Canada:
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he is "deeply skeptical" of the newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran and says Canada's sanctions will remain in "full force" against the country.

"We will evaluate the deal reached not just on the merits of its words but more importantly, on its verifiable implementation," Baird said at a news conference in Ottawa on Sunday.

He said that because of previous Iranian leaders had made hostile comments toward Israel, “we're deeply skeptical of the deal and the work that's brought us to this stage.”
How dare he be so rational! :ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 20:57
It might be more accurate to state 'US former "allies" no longer prepared to go along with stuff just because Uncle Sam says it's a good idea'.
The invasion of Iraq is going to have consequences lasting a generation at least.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 21:04
Fox3, not sure where you've been for the last 30 years, but there is a wide variety of stuff that the US does unilaterally, has done, and plenty of stuff our allies, the good, the bad, and the ugly, have done without us.

I am glad to see Mr Baird call "bulshit!" on the posturing, however, but have maintained for some years that Iran needs a deterrent in the next few generations. Their neighborhood includes:
Pakistan: see notes above
India: also armed with Nukes
Israel: armed with nukes
Russia: sorta friendly now, but armed with nukes
China: they get along now, but also armed with nukes
Israel: well, they've had a case of the ass for each other for a while, so the two deterrents ought to cancel out.

A very sound case for "we need the deterrent" can be made for Iran given the voalitility of the Indian Ocean region ... called by some a new Ring of Fire.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2013, 21:07
Fox3 wrote:

The invasion of Iraq is going to have consequences lasting a generation at least.

The invasion of Iraq is having continuing consequences in Afghanistan which will also last a generation at least and will require the continued presence of "boots on the ground" by the U.S.

It is my opinion that had the U.S. not lost their eye on the ball in Afghanistan, instead turning it to Iraq, Afghanistan would have been somewhat more stable than it is now. And might have stayed that way for the forseeable future.

rgbrock1
25th Nov 2013, 21:09
LW50 wrote:

given the voalitility of the Indian Ocean region ... called by some a new Ring of Fire.

Or the voalitility of the East China Sea given the recent "pronouncements" by the Chinese government.

Tom Clancy's 'Threat Vector' is becoming more and more realistic with each passing day.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:16
It is my opinion that had the U.S. not lost their eye on the ball in Afghanistan, instead turning it to Iraq, Afghanistan would have been somewhat more stable than it is now.

In a word, no. Afghanistan is and will forever remain beyond redemption - no amount of blood, tears and treasure will ever turn that country around.

The invasion of Iraq is having continuing consequences

The main one being no more western boots on the ground in anyplace vaguely dangerous. There's simply no public appetite for any more half-arsed wars in godforsaken corners of the world. Politics and negotiation are the only way to go now.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 22:19
That may not be such a bad thing, D_P.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 22:19
LW50 - I agree about separate acts. It's my belief that the US and it's allies are acting less in common these days than in the past 30 years. I think the primary reason is what might generously be referred to as the Intelligence failure over WMD in Iraq (from which the UK also suffers, and why Blair is persona non grata in public still).

p.s. I think the Snowdon revelations will have quite a long term effect too.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 22:21
I am surprised that NATO is still in place. It's reason to exist no longer exists. Is inertia the reason? :confused:

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:22
Canada's sanctions will remain in "full force" against the country

Well that's going to be a game-changer - how is Iran ever going to cope without all that Canadian crude oil, let alone those moose antlers and hockey kit? The country will be brought to its knees.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 22:23
I am surprised that NATO is still in place
Rumors of the death of the Russian Bear have been greatly exaggerated. It's still in hospital, but with quite an armory in its bedside locker.

I was working recently with an Iranian immigrant. He was singing the praises of Canadian hockey kit (really), so don't knock it :ok:

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:26
It's my belief that the US and it's allies are acting less in common these days than in the past 30 years

Really? I thought our very own Catherine Ashton had been instrumental in brokering this deal. Apparently the Iranian delegation was positively effusive about her.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:31
He was singing the praises of Canadian hockey kit (really), so don't knock it

Ah, the old Persian charm - works a treat every time, especially with gullible north Americans:ok:

I'll hazard a guess that he steered clear of any mention of Rob Ford...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 22:31
Catherine Ashton
She was made a Labour life peer as Baroness Ashton of Upholland in 1999, under Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Say no more...

Persian charm

Well, he is volunteering with the Red Cross (a lot), so he's prepared to match his words with actions.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:34
What?! So you're saying that Blair is really behind this deal? Christ, they'll be no shutting him up now.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 22:39
Apparently the Iranian delegation was positively effusive about her.
What, does she have nice tits?

Oh, wait, sorry, Slasher isn't Persian. :E Belay my last.

I do miss the Slasher factor, I really do.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 22:40
Go read Ashton's bio, and there's no shutting Blair up anyway - though he daren't show his face in the UK.

Ashton is the former treasurer of CND, and therefore a (possibly well-meaning) idiot. In 2011, she was the only European Commissioner to receive the lowest possible performance rating in a poll.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 22:43
Ashton graduated with a BSc in Sociology in 1977

Between 1977 and 1983, Ashton worked for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) as an administrator and in 1982 was elected as its national treasurer and subsequently as one of its vice-chairs.
Say no more, Fox3, say no more! :}

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:43
A colleague of my wife just got a job with Blair's consulting firm. Nine interviews, including one with the man himself...

Having sorted out the Middle East, he is now apparently turning his attention to Africa. God help 'em.

Lonewolf_50
25th Nov 2013, 22:44
Having sorted out the Middle East, he is now apparently turning his attention to Africa. God help 'em.
What did those people do to deserve this?

Oh, the humanity! :{

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:45
Ashton worked for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Well I never. I wonder is she was one of the wimmin' my mates and I abused outside Greenham Common in the early 80s? :E

RequestPidgeons
25th Nov 2013, 22:46
Persians have a long history of tunneling and magic ,pay attention or you will miss the magic

Good call, fit.
:ok:
I am impressed!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th Nov 2013, 22:49
Too posh for that.
Her appointment in Europe was a fine example of what my geography master used to call the Great British Compromise - the most acceptable solution is the one which makes everybody equally unhappy, no matter how unhappy that is. Which brings us back neatly to the OP. This Iranian deal makes every party to it equally unhappy, and that's pretty miserable, but they'll all pretend it's the best thing since sliced bread.

dead_pan
25th Nov 2013, 22:50
Persians have a long history of tunneling and magic

Well, they still got their asses whipped at Thermopylae

HdNn5TZu6R8

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 23:14
The vast majority of Iraqi forces, insurgents et al. were, and still are, cowardly. They do not stand and fight. (Just like their brethren across the great divide: the skinnies of Mog, Somalia) They fire a few rounds, toss a few grenades, fire a few canon shots, etc. and then, after doing so, high tail it the other way.

Did not the Founding Fathers do something similar ?

Would you advocate special forces hitting and running or standing still for a battle ?

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 23:18
Nations thinking of developing and owning their own nuclear bombs should bear in mind that it automatically makes them first-strike nuclear targets for the big boys. Yep.

Hello, our dear frineds in Iran, welcome to the "you are now a target" club." You put yourself there. Sleep well. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

That includes Israel as well........................and UK and France as well as usual suspects.

Lets face it why would you exclude anybody ?

A nuke is still a nuke irrespective of its origins and whether Hollywood helped build it.

BenThere
25th Nov 2013, 23:19
Maybe so, but they didn't put children in front of them as they fired.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 23:23
Quote:
Ashton graduated with a BSc in Sociology in 1977

Between 1977 and 1983, Ashton worked for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) as an administrator and in 1982 was elected as its national treasurer and subsequently as one of its vice-chairs.
Say no more, Fox3, say no more! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


M16 or M15 most definitely......................

An Administrator has access to lots of basic mundane stuff like membership lists, meeting minutes, donations etc etc.

racedo
25th Nov 2013, 23:24
Well I never. I wonder is she was one of the wimmin' my mates and I abused outside Greenham Common in the early 80s? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

You don't go from there to now with a background like that including chatting easily with US....................definitely a spy.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Nov 2013, 00:13
If being a naive idiot and getting promoted way beyond one's ability by Tony Blair is evidence someone was in MI5, then they must have employed an awful lot of people....:suspect:

obgraham
26th Nov 2013, 00:47
I knew that in my foggy memory, I'd heard of a similarly ineffective pact once before.

Check out the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.

That must have been Kerry/Obama's precedent. It was SO effective!

fitliker
26th Nov 2013, 03:41
Was that a Freudian slip ?
Asses being whipped when talking about the movie 300

Just razzing :}:}

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 10:22
Was that a Freudian slip ?

Are you suggesting the film 300 has homo-erotic overtones? I can't say I ever picked up on that when I watched it :E

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 10:27
definitely a spy

Intriguing postulation. She doesn't seem like spy material, but then that's probably exactly the sort of person they're looking for.

I recall there was talk of her department at the EC getting its very own fleet of drones, so she probably be in the pay of the CIA.

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 10:36
I am surprised that NATO is still in place. It's reason to exist no longer exists. Is inertia the reason?

Well I've heard its a cushy posting for all those forces personnel involved. Also, much like the EC, it keeps lots and lots of bureaucrats in gainful employment. I'm sure they'll all keep the gravy train chugging along for a good few years yet.

BTW We European sophisticates use the phrase 'raison d'etre'. For some reason the occasional use of French phrases makes us sound much more intelligent :ok:

racedo
26th Nov 2013, 11:31
If being a naive idiot and getting promoted way beyond one's ability by Tony Blair is evidence someone was in MI5, then they must have employed an awful lot of people....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

Blair may be a lot of things but stupid he wasn't.

If Ashton was a wrong un then chattering classes in media would already have had her pushed or undermined, she hasn't been.

Tories have made no real effort either, which given some the elements with them it has been a surprise even with her track record.............coming from nowhere, implausible.

vulcanised
26th Nov 2013, 12:40
It is being said that Mrs Ecclestone has been under Mr Blair and Mr Ecclestone is not happy.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2013, 13:09
racedo wrote:

Did not the Founding Fathers do something similar ?

Would you advocate special forces hitting and running or standing still for a battle ?

No, the founding fathers did not do something like that. Nor do any member of the Continental Army. (You know, that bunch of rag bag peasants who kicked your country's ass both sides of Sunday and then tossed you out?)

Special Forces take the battle to the enemy and do not ever turn and flee. And do not leave the theater of battle until the enemy has been defeated. Very simple fact.

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 13:17
Very simple fact.

S'funny, I recall a very recent operation in Somalia where the Navy SEALs beat a rather hasty retreat in the face of some stiff opposition. Or was that a "tactical pause"? :ok:

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 13:19
It is being said that Mrs Ecclestone has been under Mr Blair and Mr Ecclestone is not happy.

Wasn't there also some allegations about him "consorting" with Mr Murdoch's wife? Digger ain't gonna be too happy about that.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2013, 13:20
'Tis true, dead pan, 'tis true. And one of the reasons why the SEALs had to beat feet the other way is because they neglected to take along a platoon or two of U.S. Army Rangers.

The SEAL's will learn some day. Maybe.

:ok::}:E

Solid Rust Twotter
26th Nov 2013, 13:59
A lot of SF work is intel so running away is not a bad thing. Tests the response and you get to make it home with first hand accounts. The real trick is not to be spotted in the first place and be halfway home by the time it goes wahoonie shaped for the enemy, ie, hit and run.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2013, 14:08
And wisdom tells you that if your force of 6 men is outnumbered 30:1 then it might indeed be a good idea to beat feet out of the AO.

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 14:10
30:1

What a wiener - our SAS boys laugh in face of those odds :ok:

Sunray Minor
26th Nov 2013, 14:26
The vast majority of Iraqi forces, insurgents et al. were, and still are, cowardly. They do not stand and fight. [etc etc]

What force from any country "stands and fights" against overwhelming, equal or even inferior military force? We operated to a 3:1 rule...unless things were that much in favour - withdraw. The US, UK and their allies operate to similar arrangements at this very moment, and all forces willingly back off and call in "un-cowardly" JDAMs or indirect fire when under effective fire.

Put aside the macho willy waving. You can say a lot of things about insurgents. But cowardly wouldn't be one of them (as a general rule).

racedo
26th Nov 2013, 14:52
And wisdom tells you that if your force of 6 men is outnumbered 30:1 then it might indeed be a good idea to beat feet out of the AO.

Is that not turning and running ?

No criticism from me on that, as do not believe SF recuitment comes with a "You must die a hero asap".
Turning and running means you live to fight another day and SF turn and run IF required and also fight another day (many many days I believe).

SF wish to fight on their terms, so do others, can't criticise them for that.

racedo
26th Nov 2013, 14:54
Put aside the macho willy waving. You can say a lot of things about insurgents. But cowardly wouldn't be one of them (as a general rule).

Knowing you are outgunned and will probably die and you still fight to the death is generally not a sign of a coward.

West Coast
26th Nov 2013, 15:06
"our SAS boys laugh in face of those odds"

Not for long, nor would they have the last laugh.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2013, 15:16
From the Ranger creed:

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender* is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

*nor is retreat.

Sunray Minor
26th Nov 2013, 15:30
And my infantry motto, as I guess are all, was similar. The truth of the matter is for every military, withdrawal, retreat, tactical re-maneourvering, whatever you want to call it, is an every day, commendable, essential practice. If insurgent armies are cowards because they employ tactics we are hard pressed to fight against then we are as guilty as they are.

rgbrock1
26th Nov 2013, 15:39
Sunray:

U.S. Army Infantry (11B): "Follow Me." (I was an infantryman before a Ranger.)

First I'm not sure I agree with the two words "insurgent" and "army". A loosely knit-together collection of rag.. bags, yes.

I was not meaning to denigrate a tactical withdrawl in the face of overwhelming enemy forces nor a tactical retreat after suffering major unit casualties.

What I was meaning to denigrate is the known tactic of insurgents, terrorists and other related rag bags to shoot weaponry (inaccurately at best) and then scoot. Shoot and then scoot. Those tactics are always the same whether practiced by Al Qaeda in Iraq, skinnies in Mog, or Arab "militia" in the 'Stan. Fire a few rounds and then run away as fast as you can. That's not fighting, that's chicken shit.

Lonewolf_50
26th Nov 2013, 15:41
I seem to recall that the military theorist JFC Fuller had a military maxim for the ignorant called

Hit
Move
Protect

It covers a lot of the basics of fighting in war, of various sorts. Pithy, it is.

Getting back to Iran, and getting away from Rangers, SF, rebels, irregular warfare, and such I am reminded of the great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the saber rattling circa 2007 that Cheney and Bush were embarked upon in the Persian Gulf. Horrors, there were two carrier battle groups in the vicinity. OMG, Rumors of War!!!! :eek: The whingers and appeasers were near apoplectic over the prospect of "he wants to start a war with Iran!"
Those of us who served know that during the Cold War, we almost always had two, sometimes three, carriers in the Med or near to it. No war there either.

He didn't want to start a war, and he didn't start one.
Did he achieve his political and strategic aims with that saber rattling?
Hard to say.
I was not in CENTCOM at the time and thus didn't have access to the documents one might be able to reference to see what a given demonstration or action is intended to achieve politcally. (Doubtless, Pvt Manning read them all ... :p )

Now that the jaw jaw has happened for our latest President, what aim is achieved other than a temporary series of praise from various media and pundits?

I am not sure. I am inclined to agree with Mr Baird from Canada that a skeptical view of the virtues of this latest move is warranted.

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 17:00
Not for long, nor would they have the last laugh.

Well, you're clearly not an afficionado of those highly factual accounts of SAS operations written by Chris Ryan and Andy McNab. :ok:

dead_pan
26th Nov 2013, 17:03
I am inclined to agree with Mr Baird from Canada that a skeptical view of the virtues of this latest move is warranted.

It is early days and progress is progress. A healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate however surely we can also allow ourselves to be a little bit optimistic?

PTT
26th Nov 2013, 17:04
What I was meaning to denigrate is the known tactic of insurgents, terrorists and other related rag bags to shoot weaponry (inaccurately at best) and then scoot. Shoot and then scoot. Those tactics are always the same whether practiced by Al Qaeda in Iraq, skinnies in Mog, or Arab "militia" in the 'Stan. Fire a few rounds and then run away as fast as you can. That's not fighting, that's chicken shit.If it works, it works. War is not about bravado: sticks and stones...

racedo
26th Nov 2013, 17:06
What I was meaning to denigrate is the known tactic of insurgents, terrorists and other related rag bags to shoot weaponry (inaccurately at best) and then scoot. Shoot and then scoot. Those tactics are always the same whether practiced by Al Qaeda in Iraq, skinnies in Mog, or Arab "militia" in the 'Stan. Fire a few rounds and then run away as fast as you can. That's not fighting, that's chicken shit.

You realise (intentionally or otherwise) that that statement can equally apply to anybody in a fast moving jet who shoots and scoots.

Why would you expect an enemy to fight to your strengths ?

pigboat
27th Nov 2013, 01:09
Now that the jaw jaw has happened for our latest President, what aim is achieved other than a temporary series of praise from various media and pundits?

I like Dennis Miller's statement "We need less Neville and more Wilt." :D