Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Or maybe just assembling a big carrier battle group from what is in the area as a contingency for what may happen. That could just be action to keep the Strait open. There's a difference between all out aggresion and "policing" international waters.
I seem to recall a Brit of some sort in the dim and distant past, Oliver Cromwell, remarking that
"A man-o-war is the best ambassador" or something like that. (A Man O'War makes the best ambassador?)
"A man-o-war is the best ambassador" or something like that. (A Man O'War makes the best ambassador?)
What if the Iranians are far smarter than we give them credit for? What if they are really looking at the longterm and are just using these tactics in the short term to merely jerk our chain a bit?
As they continue to foster good relationships (open and covert)....with the unmitigated disaster the Obama Foreign Policy is becoming...the continued weakening of the US Military....are we not at far greater risk than imagined?
They are now the strongest military force in the region....with lots of dedicated folks in their military....where the Arabs on the other side cannot say the same or muster the amount of hardware needed to go up against the Iranians without great risk of losing. They have become a very strong military power in the region and are getting stronger politically.
The US Military cannot fight a war with them....we don't have the troops or financial ability to do so anymore. Yet...I fail to see how we can "Treat" with them as they are dealing from a position of strength compared to our weaker position. They live there....we don't. In time....the Arab Nations will find a way to cohabit ate with the Iranians and that will be done to meet their needs and not those of the Western Powers.
As they continue to foster good relationships (open and covert)....with the unmitigated disaster the Obama Foreign Policy is becoming...the continued weakening of the US Military....are we not at far greater risk than imagined?
They are now the strongest military force in the region....with lots of dedicated folks in their military....where the Arabs on the other side cannot say the same or muster the amount of hardware needed to go up against the Iranians without great risk of losing. They have become a very strong military power in the region and are getting stronger politically.
The US Military cannot fight a war with them....we don't have the troops or financial ability to do so anymore. Yet...I fail to see how we can "Treat" with them as they are dealing from a position of strength compared to our weaker position. They live there....we don't. In time....the Arab Nations will find a way to cohabit ate with the Iranians and that will be done to meet their needs and not those of the Western Powers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the Iranians are far smarter than we give them credit for? What if they are really looking at the longterm and are just using these tactics in the short term to merely jerk our chain a bit?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did Australia stop speaking English?
Whenever did the Aussies start speaking "English"?
At least I'm more than prepared to admit my failings at using the Queens English
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leave Iran alone.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just proved your point, rh. Apostrophe required, I'm afraid.
A little hint, maybe I'm getting dyslexic or something in my old age, for the life of me I couldn't find too much wrong with the first one, even after reading it a few times. Apart from that apostrophe thingy bob type of thing.
edited to add another o thingy, to too, think that's it.
Last edited by rh200; 18th Jan 2012 at 06:57.
Airborne Aircrew, I don't understand the assumptions made about how AchMahDinnerzCabbage would necessarily start lobbing nukes about.
It seems to me that Iran's goal is to achieve a credible deterrent capability, which is what most current nuclear powers hold.
If ever a lesson was learned in 2003, it was that having a credible nuclear deterrent goes a long way to preventing being invaded. Even having a questionable nuclear capability, a la North Korea, may increase your likelihood of avoiding invasion.
For any power node, particularly in an autocratic form of government, that is a state of being very desirous of being achieved.
It's got bloody eff all to do with lobbing nukes at Israel, or much of anyone else. Further that last point, Isreal has already established a credible nuclear deterrent, such that Iran's leadership, whatever overblown rhetoric they like to spew forth, aren't stupid enough to bring that down upon their own heads. They have too much to lose.
It seems to me that Iran's goal is to achieve a credible deterrent capability, which is what most current nuclear powers hold.
If ever a lesson was learned in 2003, it was that having a credible nuclear deterrent goes a long way to preventing being invaded. Even having a questionable nuclear capability, a la North Korea, may increase your likelihood of avoiding invasion.
For any power node, particularly in an autocratic form of government, that is a state of being very desirous of being achieved.
It's got bloody eff all to do with lobbing nukes at Israel, or much of anyone else. Further that last point, Isreal has already established a credible nuclear deterrent, such that Iran's leadership, whatever overblown rhetoric they like to spew forth, aren't stupid enough to bring that down upon their own heads. They have too much to lose.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf:
The point of that message had nothing to do with nuclear deterrence, international diplomacy or any other rational subject. It had much more to do with an already unstable country dominated by a twisted view of it's own religion getting their knickers in a bunch over a cartoon or some such and believing that Allah will reward them for the destruction of the infidel masses that spawned its author... Or some other silliness...
The point of that message had nothing to do with nuclear deterrence, international diplomacy or any other rational subject. It had much more to do with an already unstable country dominated by a twisted view of it's own religion getting their knickers in a bunch over a cartoon or some such and believing that Allah will reward them for the destruction of the infidel masses that spawned its author... Or some other silliness...
It had much more to do with an already unstable country dominated by a twisted view of it's own religion getting their knickers in a bunch over a cartoon or some such and believing that Allah will reward them for the destruction of the infidel masses that spawned its author...
So much wrong with your post.
The timeline shows pretty much that Pakistan - unstable country with nukes and supplied by the west was one of the key countries where protests occured, Saudi another tolerant state (not) with the nukes of Pakistan at its disposal is another country where the protests happening
As for Iran well the lack of protests from them is noticeable but why not just stereotype them as being involved
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo:
I used the cartoon as an example of the sort of thing that set's off those who have a "little too much belief in their supreme" being. It was not intended to be an example of what sets off Iran. My message was fairly clear if you go back and read it without the benefit of your "jerky knee".
When you have a man in a prominent position in a country vowing the destruction of another country why do you think it is acceptable to give them the ability to do so?
I used the cartoon as an example of the sort of thing that set's off those who have a "little too much belief in their supreme" being. It was not intended to be an example of what sets off Iran. My message was fairly clear if you go back and read it without the benefit of your "jerky knee".
When you have a man in a prominent position in a country vowing the destruction of another country why do you think it is acceptable to give them the ability to do so?
When you have a man in a prominent position in a country vowing the destruction of another country why do you think it is acceptable to give them the ability to do so?
Iranian President does not have final say in Nuke business, that is held by Ayatollah's and given that Iranian President has 18 months of his final term to run I wouldn't be that worried.
Obama has 5 years (if relected) and he can go to war without Congressional approval.
As for people being in a prominent position calling for destruction of another country, Well Iranian President wouldn't be the 1st or last.
Airborne Aircrew, I appreciate your reservations about the stabilty and motives of Iranian political leadership. I do not put as much stock in their standard anti Israeli sentiments as you seem to.
A far less stable nation, with a far less stable history and cultural baseline, is already in possession of dozens of nukes. Their explicit political foe, India, is the obvious target/deterrent subject for their nuclear arms. I refer to Pakistan. We (America) are on speaking terms with them, albeit our relationship is rocky. Their only saving grace at the moment is not being an explicit theocracy, even though the nation (such as it is) was set up as a homeland for Muslims by the British. Eff me, but we aren't even on speaking terms with Iran. How the hell are we to work this out?
I try to get away from the hyperbole and look at more practical problems, goals, and issues.
Iran's current political leverage is limited to sea denial, their ability to sponsor fifth column movements in a variety of places on the planet, and a modest amount of oil supply offered, or not, to the global market. Given those limitations, and their aims of being more of a power, they seem to make up for their deficiencies with added noise, bluster, and rhetoric as political tools. They also make the political appeal across cultural grounds to Muslims in an effort to form a "we and they" framework for persuading others of a mutual set of interests. (This is regardless of their actual motives and aims).
None of that is furthered by using nuclear weapons. All of the above is bolstered (at least regionally) by holding a nuclear deterrent.
A far less stable nation, with a far less stable history and cultural baseline, is already in possession of dozens of nukes. Their explicit political foe, India, is the obvious target/deterrent subject for their nuclear arms. I refer to Pakistan. We (America) are on speaking terms with them, albeit our relationship is rocky. Their only saving grace at the moment is not being an explicit theocracy, even though the nation (such as it is) was set up as a homeland for Muslims by the British. Eff me, but we aren't even on speaking terms with Iran. How the hell are we to work this out?
I try to get away from the hyperbole and look at more practical problems, goals, and issues.
Iran's current political leverage is limited to sea denial, their ability to sponsor fifth column movements in a variety of places on the planet, and a modest amount of oil supply offered, or not, to the global market. Given those limitations, and their aims of being more of a power, they seem to make up for their deficiencies with added noise, bluster, and rhetoric as political tools. They also make the political appeal across cultural grounds to Muslims in an effort to form a "we and they" framework for persuading others of a mutual set of interests. (This is regardless of their actual motives and aims).
None of that is furthered by using nuclear weapons. All of the above is bolstered (at least regionally) by holding a nuclear deterrent.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo:
I'm aware of that... If the Ayatollahs are happy to have him use the rhetoric he does then they are happy with it. They are the ones that scare me because they work far more deeply in their religious beliefs.
I'll let the Yanks here shoot you down on that one.
Lonewolf:
I'm too old to trust that a country like Iran will "do the right thing"... We let 18 year old's drive here in the USA. We don't let them drink until they are 21 because it's a recipe for disaster...
The argument that a country with the oil reserves of Iran needs nuclear power stations rather than oil powered is specious.
Iranian President does not have final say in Nuke business, that is held by Ayatollah's and given that Iranian President has 18 months of his final term to run I wouldn't be that worried.
Obama has 5 years (if relected) and he can go to war without Congressional approval.
Lonewolf:
None of that is furthered by using nuclear weapons. All of the above is bolstered (at least regionally) by holding a nuclear deterrent.
The argument that a country with the oil reserves of Iran needs nuclear power stations rather than oil powered is specious.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airborne Aircrew
"If the Ayatollahs are happy to have him use the rhetoric he does then they are happy with it."
Agree, but they are not always happy with his rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that he was pulled up by them for one of his rants and told to pull his head in.
I think it might have been the one about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
.
"If the Ayatollahs are happy to have him use the rhetoric he does then they are happy with it."
Agree, but they are not always happy with his rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that he was pulled up by them for one of his rants and told to pull his head in.
I think it might have been the one about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N:
Yep, I'm aware that they were a tad unhappy with him and, like you I'm unsure of what it was, but i go back to my single point:-
Why give someone you don't trust the ability to do something you don't want?
Yep, I'm aware that they were a tad unhappy with him and, like you I'm unsure of what it was, but i go back to my single point:-
Why give someone you don't trust the ability to do something you don't want?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Agree again.
I am surprised that the hierarchy let him go on with some of his rants,
he is not in that strong a position and they know he causes heat to be applied.
Less rhetoric, less world focus on Iran.
Agree again.
I am surprised that the hierarchy let him go on with some of his rants,
he is not in that strong a position and they know he causes heat to be applied.
Less rhetoric, less world focus on Iran.