It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 22
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by XBoMeR
Iran and America is allied, because they were Jew and Syiah. Jew and Syiah will attack Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.


1. How is Iran allied with America?
2. What is 'Syiah'?
3. What is 'Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah'?




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by XBoMeR
Iran and America is allied, because they were Jew and Syiah. Jew and Syiah will attack Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.


Are you saying you think the shiites and the jews are going to team up and attack the sunnis? Interesting, but why would they do that?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Iran may want nuclear weapons, because as they see it, and it is a view not without credence, you only gain respect as a nation on the world stage if you have the firepower to back it up.

If we look at the nations we consider quite influential and taken seriously and respectively in the world, we look at the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Israel and Pakistan.

The majority of them have strong economies which make them influential, that is true, but they also have nuclear weapons that make big bangs. That means when there is something happening in the world, the majority if not all of these nations are consulted.

It's a sad fact...but nations without nukes are now looking at the armed nations, how respected and influential they are.

In a world where the stronger nations step on the weaker ones for better or worse, those not influential, not all-powerful, don't want to be the next one to be stepped on just because they disagree with a number of these powerful nations.

Look at North Korea. Since they've declared they have nukes, the pressure on them has gone, and has been applied to Iran instead.

Iran has a powerful army on it's doorstep, and let's not forget, on two fronts that border it, not only Iraq but Afghanistan. An army that belongs to an old enemy, one that it always differed on viewpoints.

Of course, Iran has oil, (4th largest oil producer in the world) and with it, it can be quite prosperous and infuential.

We can not blame Iran, if after seeing it's neighbour invaded, for what many see for oil, Iran gets a bit nervous, having not been on friendly terms with the US.

Iran, it could be said, perhaps intensified it's efforts to become nuclear after the 'Axis Of Evil' speech by Bush.

It was a shock to Iran, a setback, and I shall explain why.

In the immeadiate wake of the horrific and murderous events of September 11th 2001, Iran caught Al-Qaeda militants fleeing Afghanistan into Iran, and handed them over to the US. Iran did this about three times.

It could have begun a new relationship, a new start, for the US and Iran, perhaps a relationship that would have encouraged Iran to modernise quicker than it is now.

Bush's 'Axis Of Evil' speech destroyed that, or at least, set it back. Iran set upon it's nuclear programme, diplomacy to the US via anti-Al-Qaeda co-operation not being enough to stop it from being an enemy in the eyes of Bush's administration.


It may come as a surprise to some who note the rhetoric of the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad, but Al-Qaeda hate Iran, and Iran hates Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda are a extremist Sunni branch of Islam.

Iran are Shia Islam in domination.

The Shia-Sunni split in Islam occured when some muslims did not recognise a Caliph as a successor to the prophet Muhammed. They became known as the Shia.

It can be likened in some aspects, to Judaism not seeing Jesus as the Messiah that Christianity sees him as.

Extremist Sunnis saw and have seen since, that Shias, because they did not recognise the Caliph, were no longer muslims, and could be killed and slaughtered as infidels.

We see this with Al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq, blowing up Shia mosques in Iraq, killing hundreds, declaring that "Shias are dogs, worse than Americans" and seeing them as traitors of Islam.

If Al-Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Al-Zawhari were to be killed and their deaths proven, Shias would rejoice, and this includes of course Iran.

The genuine Iraqi Resistance would also rejoice, because their cause is damaged by Al-Zarqawi's group which kills indiscriminately, indeed there are reports of Iraqi insurgents openly engaging in fierce and bloody gun battles with what can be described as Al-Qaeda linked groups because of the killing of Iraqi people indiscriminately instead of targetting the US-UK military and Iraqi police and army.

If Iran is arming Shia militias in Iraq like Al-Sadr's group, it would be quite fair to say it is not only against the UK and US military to bog them down from invading Iran, but also to arm the Shias against Al-Zarqawi's group who target Shias, and to strengthen the Shia dominated Iraqi government who are on friendly terms with Iran.

There are extremist Sunni groups in Iran, one of whom is holding Iranian soldiers and is threatening to behead them.

I have seen threads where some have claimed this group are Freedom Fighters, yet they do not say the same when a similar group in Iraq does the same to it's hostages....

Iran does sponsor terrorism, or freedom fighting, a conundrum which the result of the solution one comes to is based on position and opinion.

Yes, Iran supports Hezbollah, a Shia Militant group in Lebanon, who fought the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon.

Whilst this can be seen as proof of sponsorship of terrorism, it can also be seen as the sponsorship of freedom fighters and sovereign resistance against foreign occupation, especially to a proportion of the population of Lebanon.

Some Americans wish to see Iran be inflicted with vengeance for the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and strain for war.

Many indeed, wonder why the Iranian hostage crisis took place, why Iranians would seize Americans and hold them against their will.

Although it can not be justified, it can be explained.

In 1953, the Iranian elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, following his nationalisation of The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, was overthrown and removed from power, in a US-UK Intelligence plot called Operation Ajax, and the former ruler, the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, against the Iranian people's will, was re-instated, and over the years he became more and more dictatorial.

The Iranians never forgave nor forgot this incident of a tyrant being imposed upon them by the British and the Americans.

The British involvement was unsurprising, they being an imperial power....but America? A nation that had been the beacon of Liberty, Freedom and Revolution against a Tyrannical Imperial power, itself becoming the very thing it had once fought against?

It hurt the Iranians, it angered them, and they never forgot, with the 26 years of the tyrannical and sadistic regime of The Shah to remind them every day of how their bid for freedom was denied, taken, and their rights abused.

In 1979, The Iranian Revolution occured, overthrowing the Shah. Contary to popular belief, it was not a complete Islamic Revolution. Those who took part in it included not only Islamic students, but also intellectuals, Socialists, Democrats, Communists and others. They came to be purged and exiled after the revolution.

Remembering 1953, the Iranians suspected deeply that the CIA, sanctioned by the US, would again try to go against their will of who they wanted to be leader.

They needed a form of assurance that the US would not be able of doing this again, so, as a people feeling they were facing down a superpower, they stormed the US embassy and took hostages.

If their revolution was countered, the American hostages lives would be the cost.

It was an act of desperation, but condemnable as it is, it was also a plea to a superpower:

Leave us alone. Let our choosing be our destiny. Please.

Let it be known I find WMD's heinous. But if Iran does get them, I don't think we should underestimate the intelligence of the Iranian leadership.

They won't throw them about at countries they don't like, they're not stupid, they know how the land lies, and they know that if they dished it out, they would get a hundred times the number and worse, annihilation in reply.

They simply want respect that the other nuclear nations have, to be on the world stage.

If they can be convinced that you don't need nukes to be regarded as an equal on the international stage whatever your belief system, then perhaps we can stop them getting nukes.

But it's very hard when all Iran sees is eight nations having nukes and not a word is said against it, and Iran is attacked diplomatically for wanting to join the nuclear club.

There is a generation in Iran who desire change, but be in no doubt that if Iran is bombed and/or invaded or has sanctions placed on them, it will fall into the hands of the hardline Ayatollahs who shall say "YOU SEE?! YOU SEE!!! WE TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM!! WE WERE RIGHT!!" and Iranians will unite behind their leaders at times of seige, putting aside differences in the face of attack, like Americans did after September 11th 2001.

And progress made over 29 years will be reversed, a generation lost to hatred of America.

The Shias in government friendly to the US and UK may turn unfriendly, and the Shia militias in Iraq may launch constant attacks, intensifying the insurgency.

And Iran may again try to re-build their plants, but if bombed again....this time more generations lost.

And let us not forget when we talk of Iran in the international stage, we talk mainly of the leadership.

Don't forget the Iranian people, who are like you and me, who work, who love, who live, who fear, in different professions, with different dreams and different aspirations.

Don't punish them because of the ravings of Ahmadinejad or the nuclear programme. It's becoming no secret that the Iranians don't take him seriously and voted him in as a protest at the previous more liberal leader who they saw did not push enough for change.

And there is another aspect to this.

China buys 12% of it's entire oil supply from Iran.

Should America really want to hit Iran, we could see what I call 'the changing of the guard.'

In 1956, The UK, France and Israel attacked Egypt after the nationalisation of The Suez Canal. It was an attempt by the UK and France to regain the glory days of their imperial past, and a good time for Israel to settle scores.

The UN, under pressure by the US upon hearing the Soviets were thinking of sending military to repell the three, (The CIA in a battle with the Soviets over who influenced Egypt trained Nasser's police military and intelligence on the methods of torture, lessons which were passed on to Syria and Iraq) gave a message to the three.

Get out. Now.

For the UK and France, it was the final changing of the guard, their superpower status on the slide in the wake of WW2 finally confirmed as over by the new superpower on the world stage, the new guard, the US, who laid down the law to the old superpowers, making them superpowers no more.

Iran may be the scene of the changing of the guard once more, the announcement of the decline of one superpower and the rise of the new.

I talk of China.

This may be the time where China tells the US that war on Iran is not advisable, where the line is drawn in China's terms and it's interests.

China won't need it's military, the US did not need theirs when they drew the line in 1956.

This may not be just about Iran and the Iranian people, but geopolitics at large.

Unnamed sources in a dramatisation of the wake of September 11th 2001 quoted George Bush saying to Blair that "There are three targets.... Number one is Afghanistan, number two is Iraq for Saddam's link to Al-Qaeda."

Tony Blair is quoted to have said "And number three?"

"Number three can wait for now." Bush reportedly said.

Looking at a map, who are either side of Iran with US Military present in both, in a strategic position to invade if need be?

Afghanistan, and Iraq.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Bravo!!!!!! I could not say it any better. The rational that someones culture and history with your country can be just brushed aside and forgotten.

Like the guy in Syriana said: "I decied to sell oil to the Chinese becasue they had a higher bid now I have become a terrorist"

We have seen this smae lead up in Iraq Ireally hope they will not make the same mistake. Nothing can bring together a warring society than an outsider.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Bravo, Regensturm.
That was a nice breath of fresh air into a stale arguement.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
US wins support in Iran dispute


LONDON, Jan. 16 -- China and Russia agreed with the United States, Britain, Germany and France on Monday that Iran must completely suspend its nuclear program, the British Foreign Office said. Although the countries failed to agree on whether Iran's case should be referred to the U.N. Security Council, the Europeans applied new pressure on the Iranian government by calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Feb. 2.

With all six nations declaring that they sought a diplomatic solution to the escalating confrontation with Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a glimmer of hope for a compromise. Putin said the Iranian government was considering a proposal from Moscow that Russia would produce enriched uranium for Iran, to ensure the material could be used only for peaceful purposes.

Iran has adamantly reserved the right to develop its nuclear program, stating that its intention is to produce peaceful nuclear energy. But many world leaders are increasingly alarmed by the attitude of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" -- and fear he could be trying to build nuclear bombs. Intense deliberations began last week after the Iranian government ordered the removal of seals on equipment at an enrichment plant where it had ceased operations two years ago.



Regenstrum:

Iran may be the scene of the changing of the guard once more, the announcement of the decline of one superpower and the rise of the new.

I talk of China.

This may be the time where China tells the US that war on Iran is not advisable, where the line is drawn in China's terms and it's interests.

China won't need it's military, the US did not need theirs when they drew the line in 1956.

This doesn't make sense...

If China says a war on Iran is not advisable....who cares!?
If they won't use their military then why in the world would anyone listen to them?
Britian and France had to listen because the US and Russia had the power to wipe them off the map. That's not the case in this case.

China hates us being allies with Taiwan, something probably more important to them than the whole Iran situation. Have we lost our superpower status because of that? No.
So...how again do we lose it over something less important (to China)?



Edit: Also, people need to make it clear whether you think the UN (not sure why people keep saying the US. Europe is taking just as hard a stance - if not harder - on Iran than the US) would actually invade Iran this year. I seriously doubt they'd invade Iran at all. It would be pointless and accomplish nothing you can't do with airstrikes.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Tone it down or china will come over here and kick you butt! You do not go and atagonize a country that has over 1 mill in the army and holds a lot of your own countries debt. We are not a superpower anymore that is why the goverments are talking more about China's economy. If they decide to drop the dollar for Euros as a lot of ME countries are doing we are in Trouble. Especially with this new found war debt



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Bravo, Regensturm.
That was a nice breath of fresh air into a stale arguement.


Thanks.
I have been reading this thread for a number of days, and only got the time to post today.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
Tone it down or china will come over here and kick you butt! You do not go and atagonize a country that has over 1 mill in the army and holds a lot of your own countries debt.


Couldn't the same be said the other way?


We are not a superpower anymore

Define superpower


that is why the goverments are talking more about China's economy. If they decide to drop the dollar for Euros as a lot of ME countries are doing we are in Trouble. Especially with this new found war debt

You do realize that the US is one of China's largest trading partners right? (I mean, even Wal Mart alone is a larger exporter than the UK)
Something happens the US or if China decided not to be so friendly to the US anymore, China would take a huge economic hit.

Anyway BACK ON TOPIC



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

If China says a war on Iran is not advisable....who cares!?
If they won't use their military then why in the world would anyone listen to them?
Britian and France had to listen because the US and Russia had the power to wipe them off the map. That's not the case in this case.


As China's economy booms, so they become more and more infuential on the world stage. They don't have to use their military, they can use their economy and the fact they have 1.3 billion consumers.

Trade wars, as opposed to military ones.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
China hates us being allies with Taiwan, something probably more important to them than the whole Iran situation. Have we lost our superpower status because of that? No.
So...how again do we lose it over something less important (to China)?


Taiwan in terms of materials and strategic positioning is not as important to China as maintaining influence over a nation that supplies it with 12% of it's oil.

Taiwan is a thorn in the side of China, but Taiwan in recent years have seen China's boom and want a slice of that cake. China does not need to invade or flex it's military muscles. I can see a Hong Kong scenario settlement come into being there.

Iran is a material provider for China, in a world of unstable oil supplies.

China may not want to give that up unless the US can give assurances of continuing supplies from Iran for the same price rate should an invasion of Iran occur.

Another one to look at is Venezuela, another oil provider for China.

A left-wing president in Latin America? He should have been toppled by the CIA by now, going by past examples, or at least received constant criticism from the US.

But yet....it's not happened.

Another of China's oil providers.

If the War in Iraq is for oil, then it is perhaps something to comment on that the US military was needed to secure it, as opposed to China, with the biggest military, not firing a shot in clinching their own oil providers.

I'm not saying the US will cease to be an influential super power over night, the UK continued exploits after 1956 but on low intensity affairs until giving up it's colonies, but nor will it continue to be the sole superpower, and in that, it may find itself restrained in future ventures having seen the line drawn in the sand by China.

And India will be in contention for superpower soon enough also.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Edit: Also, people need to make it clear whether you think the UN (not sure why people keep saying the US. Europe is taking just as hard a stance - if not harder - on Iran than the US) would actually invade Iran this year. I seriously doubt they'd invade Iran at all. It would be pointless and accomplish nothing you can't do with airstrikes.


The use majorly in discussion of any war resulting with Iran (in the wake of the nuclear stand off) of it being a US-Iran war comes from perhaps the knowledge or at least the suspicion, that it would be one led by the US military, which would be the dominating force in the assault, through air or ground.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

You do realize that the US is one of China's largest trading partners right? (I mean, even Wal Mart alone is a larger exporter than the UK)
Something happens the US or if China decided not to be so friendly to the US anymore, China would take a huge economic hit.

Anyway BACK ON TOPIC


And China is one of US's largest trading partners, it works both ways.

Losing 1.3 billion consumers is something the US is not keen on, in all liklihood.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
Bravo!!!!!! I could not say it any better. The rational that someones culture and history with your country can be just brushed aside and forgotten.


Thanks.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
As China's economy booms, so they become more and more infuential on the world stage. They don't have to use their military, they can use their economy and the fact they have 1.3 billion consumers.

Trade wars, as opposed to military ones.

Still doesn't explain why anyone would lose superpower status...

China cutting off trade would hurt it as much as it would hurt the country it cut off trade too. It's a no win situation. They wouldn't gain superpower status should that happen, they would actually be set back...



......

China may not want to give that up unless the US can give assurances of continuing supplies from Iran for the same price rate should an invasion of Iran occur.

Ok, China may not want....but again, how would they stop?
You're still not explaining why the world would just all of a sudden bow down and start listening to China.


Another one to look at is Venezuela, another oil provider for China.

A left-wing president in Latin America? He should have been toppled by the CIA by now, going by past examples, or at least received constant criticism from the US.

But yet....it's not happened.

Another of China's oil providers.


Are you serious?


If the War in Iraq is for oil, then it is perhaps something to comment on that the US military was needed to secure it, as opposed to China, with the biggest military, not firing a shot in clinching their own oil providers.

1. The countries which the US get's the vast majority of their oil are (in order): Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria. How many shots were fired to secure that oil?
2. Iraq was hardly about oil alone.


it may find itself restrained in future ventures having seen the line drawn in the sand by China.

This is what you're not explaining. How exactly does China draw that line? And why should anyone care if they drew a line, especially if they're not using their military and when losing trade would not be benificial one bit to them?


The use majorly in discussion of any war resulting with Iran (in the wake of the nuclear stand off) of it being a US-Iran war comes from perhaps the knowledge or at least the suspicion, that it would be one led by the US military, which would be the dominating force in the assault, through air or ground.

No, people are talking as if the US is in this alone. Why?
Any major action against Iran would be like GW1. Yeah the US may be provide the majority of the force, but it would hardly be a US war.




And China is one of US's largest trading partners, it works both ways.

Which is my point.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Still doesn't explain why anyone would lose superpower status...

China cutting off trade would hurt it as much as it would hurt the country it cut off trade too. It's a no win situation. They wouldn't gain superpower status should that happen, they would actually be set back...


The loss of superpower status would come about from an increasingly reduction of economic and military influence on the world, with China expanding with it's economy and India likewise the US would face stiff competition, competing against a combined 2.4 billion consumers. Not far off the half the world's population mark.

As for China ceasing trade with the US and vice versa, other partners can be found, and the race would be on who could trade more successfully with Europe, India, Japan. It would be a contest of influences.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Ok, China may not want....but again, how would they stop?
You're still not explaining why the world would just all of a sudden bow down and start listening to China.


The world is already listening to China, it was invited to yesterday's talks on Iran, and representatives attended.

I'm not saying the world would bow down to China, I'm saying they would sit up and take notice.

Economic pressure, tarriffs, China looking elsewhere away from the US as primary trading partner, turning to India and Europe more (depending on Europe's role in an attack on Iran). Perhaps even a UN resolution attempt 'dissaproving' of the US-led action, China recruiting allies to influence and trade with. This may happen if it's oil supply is threatened.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Are you serious?


Yes. Venezuela supplies oil to China.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. The countries which the US get's the vast majority of their oil are (in order): Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria. How many shots were fired to secure that oil?
2. Iraq was hardly about oil alone.


To secure Canada: No shots. Mexico: Depends how far back in history you go, Saudi Arabia: The constant battle with Al-Qaeda, whose one of their aims is to rid Saudi Arabia of US influence and the Saud family, many shots fired, lives lost in New York, Washington, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia...
Venezuela: attempted military coup, shots fired, before Chavez reinstated. and China secured oil deal.
Nigeria: Rebels threaten oil lines, shots fired, kidnaps.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
This is what you're not explaining. How exactly does China draw that line? And why should anyone care if they drew a line, especially if they're not using their military and when losing trade would not be benificial one bit to them?


China draws the line with economic santions and restrictions. Yes, China would lose trade, but so would the US.

But who would the rest of the world want to trade with more out of the two? the US with 300 million, whose economy can be a bit wobbly, or China with it's 1.3 billion, and a economy that shows no sign of slowing down it's boom? The drawing of the line would come from China's knowledge that if the US had to compete against China's consumption and trade, the US may not be able to compete, that China's economy is strong, and growing and growing.

The US likes security, would it risk running an economic competition with China to see who can trade more with the rest of the world on this basis?

Is Iran worth that?




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
No, people are talking as if the US is in this alone. Why?
Any major action against Iran would be like GW1. Yeah the US may be provide the majority of the force, but it would hardly be a US war. [edit on 17-1-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]


Perhaps because there is a feeling the other countries involved in discussions don't want to be involved in an Iraq occupation situation for years with a consistent insurgency, and that the US will go it alone.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw says a war with Iran is "inconceivable"

What the rest of the EU says, we wait and see.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Which is my point.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]


And mine also.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Regensturm]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
The loss of superpower status would come about from an increasingly reduction of economic and military influence on the world

Not likely anytime soon as way too many countries are dependent on the US.
Also, why didn't you state that at first. You suggested that China not wanting military action in Iran would cause the US to lose superpower status and China gain it.



with China expanding with it's economy and India likewise the US would face stiff competition, competing against a combined 2.4 billion consumers. Not far off the half the world's population mark.

Ok, the US would be joined by two superpowers. Still doesn't tell me how they lose it.



The world is already listening to China, it was invited to yesterday's talks on Iran, and representatives attended.

lol
They're part of the security council! Of course they were invited!



Economic pressure, tarriffs, China looking elsewhere away from the US as primary trading partner, turning to India and Europe more (depending on Europe's role in an attack on Iran). Perhaps even a UN resolution attempt 'dissaproving' of the US-led action, China recruiting allies to influence and trade with. This may happen if it's oil supply is threatened.

We're talking 2006 here or so I thought

China has no where near that influence yet
Anyway, any action against Iran would be a UN action, so China would be protesting something the world agrees with and deems necessary.




Yes. Venezuela supplies oil to China.

No, you know what I meant. Are you honestly suggesting that the CIA can't overthrow Chavez again because China gets some oil from there?


Saudi Arabia: The constant battle with Al-Qaeda, whose one of their aims is to rid Saudi Arabia of US influence and the Saud family, many shots fired, lives lost in New York, Washington, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia...

You're kidding right?

We've been getting oil from Saudi Arabia since...who knows...
LONG before Al Q ever exsisted.


Venezuela: attempted military coup, shots fired, before Chavez reinstated. and China secured oil deal.

Again, we've been getting oil long before Chavez was even born. And the US is still their leading importer so what does China getting an oil deal from them have to do with anything?


Nigeria: Rebels threaten oil lines, shots fired, kidnaps.

I'm talking about the US. Did we go to war with Nigeria to get oil from them?


China draws the line with economic santions and restrictions. Yes, China would lose trade, but so would the US.

Not only would they lose trade, but it would be pointless.
The bad that it would cause far outweighs and good.


But who would the rest of the world want to trade with more out of the two? the US with 300 million, whose economy can be a bit wobbly, or China with it's 1.3 billion, and a economy that shows no sign of slowing down it's boom?

lol
You mean, the US who's had an established strong economy since after WW2, or China who's recent boom has finally allowed it to approach 2nd world status.


Is Iran worth that?

Took the words right out of my mouth. Do you honestly think China is ready to just jump out there and see what happens? No. Why in the world would they risk a ton of business taking a chance that other people will like them and trade with them over a country in which they don't even get most of their oil from? That makes no sense at all.

If that's the case then China has the worse economic leaders in history and that boom their having won't last long if those leaders have their way.




Perhaps because there is a feeling the other countries involved in discussions don't want to be involved in an Iraq occupation situation for years with a consistent insurgency, and that the US will go it alone.

Again, there has been as strong or stronger talk from Europe than the US....


UK foreign secretary Jack Straw says a war with Iran is "inconceivable"

Chances are he's right. The most I can see happening (if anything were to happen this year) is airstrikes against their nuclear plants.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
american would loose in a trading war with china. china has a much greater population, so people would want to trade with them more because they could sell more to them. a company that can buy in bulk will suceed over one that cannot because they can buy it cheaper (per unit). just look at walmart, it shuts down mom and pop stores all over because they have many more stores and can buy in bulk.
china can buy more then the US can. not to mention the fact if china dumped our dollar for euros we wouldnt have much to trade with.

other countries are no where near as dependent on us as we are on them. the simple fact we cant even be somewhat isolationist shows how much we depend on other countries. china could switch to euro, buy from other places then US and proceed to invade taiwan and the other lil islands they have been aiming for.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
USA will not go to war with Iran, because Iran will accept the proposition of Russia to continue Plutonium/Uranium enrichment in Russian facilities...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Well, here's my view. China would lose big in a trade war since America is it's top customer, but the Chinese do have an economic Armaggedon weapon at hand in case of such an occurence- their DOLLAR RESERVES. If a trade war happen's, China can dump their reserves in favour of gold or Euros and bring with them most of the middle East, Asia, and Latinamerica along for the ride. This would spell absolute disaster for the carefully tailored No-Gold standard policy the Fed has been fostering for years. The Pandora's box would suddenly open and the weight of America's debt would lead to a massive hyperinflationary scenario. I'm starting to even think the Elite is preparing for this (you know- the Alex Jones theory that America's economy need's to collapse for a world currency, and that the standard of living need's to be fixed all over the World). It's just too much of a coincidence. Look at all this borrowing:

-800 Billion from Japan
-400 Billion from China
-300 Billion from the EU
-65 Billion from South Korea

plus a Trillion Dollar war in Iraq! If the Federal reserve didn't have the ability to print as much money as they want because the Dollar isn't held by Gold or some other resource, It would be safe to say this debt is unpayable. Maybe war against Iran will be the neccesary blow against the Dollar's influence as a reserve currency.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
China is the USAs biggest enemy.

They have the ability to crash our economy. But most folks don't know about that. Checkit out....



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I know this post is about Iran but its shifted to China now... not a surprise, they are Irans neighbor. It makes you think if theres somthing going on between the US and China because of all this close border tension. US has bases in Mongolia and are still increasing numbers. Were still woried about NK... is it because NK is crazy and nuke ready or is really because were still angry that China supplied arms to NK in the Korean war?

I'm sure most people here on ATS know China has the power to crash our economy but as said earlier that sort of thing goes both ways to a certain degree. I don't even think that should be mentioned.

I'm just going to hope that this does't have somthing to do with China.

Also, mentioned earlier, I don't think Iran's leader is secretly allied with the US..
that would be a HUGE surprise. If/when we do attack Iran I could see Syria jumping in this for their own revenge on America and in hopes of maybe getting a piece of Iran because they are opposed in ways. Afterall in the recent years we have been having border issues with Syria from "terrorists" crossing into the border.

In case anyone hasn't been watching Fox or CNN, the media isn't slowing down any about their talks about Iran. Seems to me and I'm sure to the Neo-conservatives that all is in place but the preperation of the public.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join