PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A crisis in 3 easy steps... [Iran]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MacG wrote:

Nonono, I agree with the various pretexts to *initiate* an assault on Iran, but who -in their right minds- would pursue it considering the imediate consequences?
....


yesyesyes (Laughing)

I agree with everything you say, until:
Quote:
The whole thing look like a hornets nest, and the only wise thing to do is to avoid poking poles into it.


Which for me is the crux - the fact that conflict with Iran would cause such a world crisis IS THE REASON TO DO IT.

Say the US tomorrow launched an all-out attack out of the blue, what effect would this have on world opinion? It would be very very bad, and the US public wouldn't like it either.

But say something happens - take your pick, an attack in the US blamed on iran, a US warship in iranian waters gets fired on, really you name it, think Gulf of Tonkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident - and the US can use that to "legitimise" a response, even a small one like air strikes but builds into a bigger and bigger conflict, how would that look then?

Many people like us would see through such a cover-story, but it would suffice as a basis for heavy-spin which would offset world opinion.

The fact that this would make things so bad in the region and the world would then give the us FAR MORE leaverage to extend the conflict then it might have had otherwise.

They need the biggest, badest, crisis they can can in order to justify going further with the overall campaign.

Could the US occupy the oil-rich regions of Iran out of the blue? Maybe. Could they do this off the back of a full-blown world energy crisis with Iran openly turning off the oil......

The worse the crisis the further the US can go - and alas probably UK forces also Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4101
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Following on from what fishertrop has said, what else has the US to lose? In fact thinking about their financial situation and the trillions of dollars they now owe, the housing bubble which is about to burst, the oncoming recession/depression which is likely to result, the whole PO situation and the rising costs of energy in the last 12 months in the US, worsened by direct hit hurricaines, what other option do they really have!!

Attacking Iran and throwing the world into turmoil might be seen by some as a solution to unresolvable problems at home? Shocked

Heck, I hope I am wrong. Crying or Very sad
_________________
Real money is gold and silver
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Joe



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
Heck, I hope I am wrong.


Me too, but it sounds horribly, horribly plausible. It seems to me that "strong" action in Afghanistan & Iraq effectively got Bush in for a second term despite the faltering economy at home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RogerCO



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Cornwall, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
Attacking Iran and throwing the world into turmoil might be seen by some as a solution to unresolvable problems at home? Shocked
Heck, I hope I am wrong. Crying or Very sad

Well lets look at it the other way around. Suppose a US led coalition did stage manage a conflict in the ME. One benefit for them would be that it would stop the Chinese and Indians getting their hands on the oil. The oil would largely stay in the ground. US & UK still have some indigenous oil - probably enough for a crisis/war footing economy. By keping the rest of the world's hands off the ME oil that allows for a long (long long) term gameplan of winning control over the ME - possibly by then a largely depopulated nuclear desert, but with the oil still all in the ground - bingo another 50-60 years capacity for US (and some crumbs for their allies).

There is a view that one consequence of the first Iraq war and the throttling of Iraqui oil production for 10 years was to save some more oil for later (alright so the strategy might not have delivered yet...)
_________________
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RogerCO



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Cornwall, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
Which for me is the crux - the fact that conflict with Iran would cause such a world crisis IS THE REASON TO DO IT.

And here's another way of looking at it...
From the point of view of someone in the west (US/EU) who is not entirely happy with the kind of consumerist controled society in which we find ourselves and seeks a more small-scale and humane form of civilization then there could be real opportunities in having the powers that be engender a world crisis - sieze the moment and use it to bring down the house of cards... BRING IT ON Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Evil or Very Mad
(which reminds me I need to reply to Blue Peter in the Govt & Society thread...dreckly)
_________________
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skeptik



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2969
Location: Costa Geriatrica, Spain

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RogerCO wrote:

And here's another way of looking at it...
From the point of view of someone in the west (US/EU) who is not entirely happy with the kind of consumerist controled society in which we find ourselves and seeks a more small-scale and humane form of civilization then there could be real opportunities in having the powers that be engender a world crisis - sieze the moment and use it to bring down the house of cards... BRING IT ON Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Evil or Very Mad


And one way of looking at that sort of attitude is that anybody who even thinks that way could be regarded as an insane misanthropist, probably psychopathic.

One wonders how they envisage a 'world crisis' which 'brings down the house of cards' - I suppose it would be acceptable to them so long as all the dead people it would inevitably involve are anywhere other than in the UK...

There again... a few hundred million, or even a few billion dead people (so long as they mainly have dark skins) is a small price to pay to achieve 'a more small-scale and humane form of civilization' Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RogerCO



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 672
Location: Cornwall, UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skeptik wrote:
And one way of looking at that sort of attitude is that anybody who even thinks that way could be regarded as an insane misanthropist, probably psychopathic.

I imagine that the important thing for an insane psychopathic misantropist is her own survival Confused
_________________
RogerCO
___________________________________
The time for politics is past - now is the time for action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
Which for me is the crux - the fact that conflict with Iran would cause such a world crisis IS THE REASON TO DO IT.


Hehehe. You almost got me there. Almost got me depressed that is.

I still think it is to much of a can of worms. There are so many variables in the equation and so few fixed points. Nobody could predict the outcome, and people tend to avoid unpredictable situations.

OK, OK, there might be some delusioned people in or around the White House who actually BELIVE that they can contain things, but I dont think they will prevail.

Dammit, I refuse to belive that I can wake up one morning and hear about a dirty nuke going off in San Fransisco and someone looking like the president of Iran bragging about it in grainy newscasts....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skeptik wrote:
And one way of looking at that sort of attitude is that anybody who even thinks that way could be regarded as an insane misanthropist, probably psychopathic.


Rude words! Go wash your mouth with soap! Or rather rinse your typing fingers with hydrochloric acid. That will teach you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skeptik



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2969
Location: Costa Geriatrica, Spain

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MacG wrote:
skeptik wrote:
And one way of looking at that sort of attitude is that anybody who even thinks that way could be regarded as an insane misanthropist, probably psychopathic.


Rude words! Go wash your mouth with soap! Or rather rinse your typing fingers with hydrochloric acid. That will teach you!


Hmm...no. Think thats about right.

RogerCO wrote:
imagine that the important thing for an insane psychopathic misantropist is her own survival

Oh yes. Absolutely. Over and above any other consideration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RogerCO wrote:

Well lets look at it the other way around. Suppose a US led coalition did stage manage a conflict in the ME. One benefit for them would be that it would stop the Chinese and Indians getting their hands on the oil.


I think China is a factor.

They lost out big-time in Iraq, the Russians also, when contracts they had with saddam were (of course) nullified, even if they had paid out for stuff.

China is a big customer of Iran, the obvious worry with this aspect is that China opts-in to defending it's friends in Iran Sad Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:

Heck, I hope I am wrong. Crying or Very sad


Me too.

I hope nothing in this thread comes true.

I see much that is plausable and much that is BAD, I hope nothing comes of any of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blair links Iran to Iraq blasts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1586309,00.html

Quote:

Tony Blair today said new explosive devices used against British troops in Iraq were suspected to have come from "Iranian elements".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
I think China is a factor.

They lost out big-time in Iraq, the Russians also, when contracts they had with saddam were (of course) nullified, even if they had paid out for stuff.

China is a big customer of Iran, the obvious worry with this aspect is that China opts-in to defending it's friends in Iran Sad Sad


Both China and Russia is (litterally) within walking distance from the ME. What if the guys in Beijing decide to join the coalition fighting "terrorism"?

"We wholeheartedly agree with our American friends and will participate in the global fight against terrorism. To start with, we will send 5 million troops to help and assist our American brothers in bringing peace, order and civilian life back to Iraq. Troops will begin to arrive tomorrow and will be fully deployed in two weeks"

Amazing they have not done it already. 5 mil vs 140 000? Who got clout in such a fix? The guys in Beijing surely have the capacity to bloat the ME with troops. And they know the meaning of the word "stability"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joe



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 596
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
Blair links Iran to Iraq blasts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1586309,00.html

Quote:

Tony Blair today said new explosive devices used against British troops in Iraq were suspected to have come from "Iranian elements".


Crying or Very sad FFS. Will we never learn?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group