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: 23
0
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
China is indeed being paid more credence than in the past because their economy will be second to none (barring some sort of EU-US economic bloc forming, which is highly unlikely) in relatively short order (a few decades, possibly a little longer based on the most conservative projections), but that isn't the primary reason they're being brought in on Iran.

China and Russia hold vetoes in the U.N. and while Russia says it'll abstain on any vote regarding sanctions, China has made no such promises. Iran is one of China's chief oil suppliers, and in the past has been at least a small bit player in certain arms deals considered to be in China's interest. In addition, the last thing the Bush administration wants is another divided U.N. when it comes to applying pressure to another third of his "axis of evil." U.S. unilateral diplomacy isn't perceived with the same reverence it has been in the past, so they'll need to play nice to get everybody onboard. You can bet they will do everything in their power to reach a united consensus on any sanctions that are to be applied.

I'm of two minds on all of this. My logical mind tells me the nations of the world aren't stupid enough to provoke a conflict with Iran that could, conceivably, involve nuclear warfare. My suspicious and not always logical mind, however, suggests to me that if there is a conspiracy at work, it might be the conspirators' goal to provoke a major regional conflict in the Middle East, or a clash of civilizations.

I don't know how much credence I give most of the conspiracy theories floating around, but I remain open to all possibilities. If the belief some hold - that there are people working to bring about a new global economic and political order consisting of 'precincts’ or blocs rather than the large number of disorganized nation states with divided interests we have now - is true however, then one could conjecture (if you believe in any of it) that regional conflicts could be created and/or provoked that result in the eventual forging of new economic and political super-states. WWI & II would be good examples (again, if you believe any of this).

If someone - hypothetically - did want to provoke such a conflict in the Middle East (or between the Middle East and the West), then the rise of international terrorism combined with foreign and military policy designed to instigate further distain for the U.S. and its allies, followed by an Israeli attack on Iran while Western military forces are still occupying a country in the region, or a WMD terror attack somehow linked to a nation in the region, would be a very, very good way to do it. Not that I necessarily believe that's the case. I'm just saying...

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AceWombat04]




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Don't forget China has said it wants to expand its boarders in the future as they are running out of space??

hmm
N.Korea
Iran
Afghanistan
Iraq

all plump for some sort of deal for us to give China???

all are axis of evil except maybe Iraq now and Afghanistan, maybe

USA:
Afghanistan
Iraq

China:
Iran
N.Korea

lol does this make any sense to anyone, is it possible the worlds been divided up between some of the major powers already???



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
Don't forget China has said it wants to expand its boarders in the future as they are running out of space??

hmm
N.Korea
Iran
Afghanistan
Iraq

all plump for some sort of deal for us to give China???

all are axis of evil except maybe Iraq now and Afghanistan, maybe

USA:
Afghanistan
Iraq

China:
Iran
N.Korea

lol does this make any sense to anyone, is it possible the worlds been divided up between some of the major powers already???


china is expanding its borders IN space
there going to the moon and going to build a spacestation.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Not likely anytime soon as way too many countries are dependent on the US.


For what? Trade? China can trade at a better price than the US if it wants in a trade war. The majority of it's workers are on low pay, and it outdoes the US for materials. Europe has been flooded with Chinese textiles, not American.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.


The US will lose superpower status over time, going on the downslide in the wake of China's boom and China's possible rebuff to an invasion of Iran.

I'm not saying overnight, but I'm saying the US won't be able to influence the majority of the world as it does now when China awakes.

There will be spheres of influence. Iran is already in China's, along with North Korea (Although North Korea is concerning China) Burma, and Venezuela.


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.



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


Economies, trade, supply and a large population to support it, the US will stretch to compete.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol
They're part of the security council! Of course they were invited!


If you think that's the only reason, you don't understand the geopolitical strategical positioning at stake.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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 we are talking 2006, and the future, and China does have influence, or can create it with the wealth it has, and the trade deals it can offer.

Don't be too sure it will be a UN action. If it is a UN action, or at the least the US is joined by the EU and others, China may only verbally protest, but the trade implications may start to show.

If it's a air strike (depends how bad), China will only make verbal demonstrations, whilst aware of the operation. It's oil supply will remain intact.

If it's a ground invasion, and the US gave no guarantees to China on the oil, we could see trade politics move into gear.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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?


If the US and the new regime in Venuezala threatens China's oil supply, yes.

China foresees this, and the US foresees that China forsees this too.


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...



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You're kidding right?

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


And this is one of the things Al-Qaeda says it is fighting against.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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?


That there are two major importers now, that the US does not have importing dominance in Venuezala, that the US opposes Chavez, but China like him. China are importing oil from regimes that are stable to it's interests, not America's.



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


In some Nigerian's eyes, yes, multinational oil companies taking the riches, villagers left with nothing. Rebels are taking oil workers hostage, blowing up oil pipes, the Nigerian Army may have to be sent in.

Again, unstable oil supplier for America.


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


Lose trade with America yes, but not neccesarily with the rest of the world.

America, competing against China, who can provide more stuff, who have money to burn?

Think about it.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.


China? 2nd World status? Ok...whatever you say....lol


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.


Let's turn that around. Do you honestly think the US is ready to lose 1.3 billion consumers to the rest of the world? Are the US ready to jump out there and see what happens with it's popularity at a low? Why would they risk a ton of business taking a chance that other people will like them and trade with them over a country with 1.3 billion consumers who they get most of their clothes from and who could guarantee oil from Iran (4th largest oil producer) and Veneuzala, not to mention countries following their lead like Saudi Arabia, which barely hides it's contempt of the US?

Trade with America may not neccesarily stop altogether, but it maybe rather less.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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..


Maybe, but maybe wishful thinking too.





Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

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


But would they military back up with a US strike or invasion?


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The most I can see happening (if anything were to happen this year) is airstrikes against their nuclear plants.


If an attack occurs, then I agree. There is geopolitics at stake, not to mention Iranian generations who can be lost to this attack through anger.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Regensturm]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
For what? Trade? China can trade at a better price than the US if it wants in a trade war. The majority of it's workers are on low pay, and it outdoes the US for materials. Europe has been flooded with Chinese textiles, not American.

Trade, aid, you name it.
Name one country that supports more nations (foriegn aid wise) than the US (in numbers and amount).


The US will lose superpower status over time, going on the downslide in the wake of China's boom and China's possible rebuff to an invasion of Iran.

China will have little or nothing to do with the US ever losing superpower status. The whole world (including China) rebuffed our invasion of Iraq, yet we didn't lose superpower status.
You give the Chinese too much power and influence. Maybe years down the road, but not now.


I'm not saying overnight, but I'm saying the US won't be able to influence the majority of the world as it does now when China awakes.

And you know this how?
What would be the difference between when the US and Russia were both superpowers than when the US and China are both superpowers?


There will be spheres of influence. Iran is already in China's, along with North Korea (Although North Korea is concerning China) Burma, and Venezuela.

Oh no! Not Burma!
...the world trembles



Economies, trade, supply and a large population to support it, the US will stretch to compete.

What are you talking about. They have 2.4 billion consummers RIGHT NOW. Yet they US is still a superpower. Competition has ALWAYS and will always be there. This is nothing new.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol
They're part of the security council! Of course they were invited!


If you think that's the only reason, you don't understand the geopolitical strategical positioning at stake.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 4 other nations would have just left China out in the dark?



Don't be too sure it will be a UN action. If it is a UN action, or at the least the US is joined by the EU and others, China may only verbally protest, but the trade implications may start to show.

Please, they start trade restrictions with the US and the EU, then we're talking about going from losing alot of trade to losing the majority of their trade and losing where most of the money is at.
Again, if the economic leaders support such a thing...I feel sorry for the Chinese people....


If it's a ground invasion, and the US gave no guarantees to China on the oil, we could see trade politics move into gear.

If it's a ground invasion, then it would be a UN led one.
China has veto power. Why didn't they use it?



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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?


If the US and the new regime in Venuezala threatens China's oil supply, yes.


You've got a lot to learn. You're giving China WAY too much credit and power. You and I are just as good a reason to why Chavez is in power as the Chinese are





Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You're kidding right?

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


And this is one of the things Al-Qaeda says it is fighting against.

You suggested that the US has to go to war with a country to secure their oil. Did we go to war with Saudi Arabia to secure their oil?
No. You can talk about Al Qaeda all you want. That doesn't change a thing.

(btw, Al Qaeda has no clue as to what they're fighting against and why. Do you honestly think those terrorists care about oil?)



That there are two major importers now, that the US does not have importing dominance in Venuezala, that the US opposes Chavez, but China like him. China are importing oil from regimes that are stable to it's interests, not America's.

Our oil imports from Venuezala have not changed. How do you explain that?




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


In some Nigerian's eyes, yes, multinational oil companies taking the riches, villagers left with nothing. Rebels are taking oil workers hostage, blowing up oil pipes, the Nigerian Army may have to be sent in.

You're really stretching now....


Lose trade with America yes, but not neccesarily with the rest of the world.

Since the majority of the world agrees that Iran should not persue nuclear weapons, it would be stupid to just lose trade with your biggest trading partner and not the rest of the world because of something the rest of the world agrees with. Again, that would be stupid and pointless.

You underestimate the power of money.


China? 2nd World status? Ok...whatever you say....lol


I thought this was common knowledge. If you can show otherwise then please go ahead....


Let's turn that around. Do you honestly think the US is ready to lose 1.3 billion consumers to the rest of the world? Are the US ready to jump out there and see what happens with it's popularity at a low? Why would they risk a ton of business taking a chance that other people will like them and trade with them over a country with 1.3 billion consumers who they get most of their clothes from and who could guarantee oil from Iran (4th largest oil producer) and Veneuzala, not to mention countries following their lead like Saudi Arabia, which barely hides it's contempt of the US?

What in the world are you talking about?
The US would be following the UN. What China does after that is up to them. The US wouldn't be jumping anywhere. If China decides to cut off trade to all countries who participate in any UN ordered airstrikes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then that's their loss and their loss alone.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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..


Maybe, but maybe wishful thinking too.

Seems there's a little wishful thinking on your part for China to overtake the US as the world's only superpower.

Why?




But would they military back up with a US strike or invasion?

Again, an invasion would be pointless and accomplish nothing.
Airstrikes on their nuke plants doesn't take a whole lot of military might and no other country has better technology than they US to conduct such a strike with minimal damage (i.e., limiting any possible radiation spread). So other countries may not be needed to back up the US.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The U.S. is China's second largest trading partner, where is Iran on the list? As long as China is guaranteed it will still get it's oil, why does anybody think they are willing to bring economic uncertainty upon themselves for Iran?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
As long as China is guaranteed it will still get it's oil, why does anybody think they are willing to bring economic uncertainty upon themselves for Iran?


The Chinese government is not our friend.

They just might back up Iran.. because they can.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The Chinese government is not our friend.

They just might back up Iran.. because they can.


They could have backed up Iraq too, but where were they on that one? It's not the oil, they backed Saddam and had an oil deal with him.



Until recently, China's view of the global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of the world's oil. Special attention was directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq.

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China's basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China's fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world's lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
They could have backed up Iraq too, but where were they on that one? It's not the oil, they backed Saddam and had an oil deal with him.


That's because, historically, Iraq was our sphere of inluence.

China and Iran have major fuel supply agreements. That is the difference.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Worse- Russian sunburns in Iran:

www.rense.com...

Russia is far more dangerous than China. All China can do is protest like a spoiled kid about it's oil (and use the conflict as an excuse to manipulate it's currency and make trade with us miserable but still profitable to both sides). Russia can send weapons to Iran before and during a war. Saddam had half his country occupied by UN troops and under no fly zones, as well as most of his arsenal scrapped. Iran is buying these babies from Russia. Bad news for the Neocons unless they strike before the equipment is delivered fully by March....



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Yes. That is a good point to ponder...

Iran has Sunburns. We don't have anything that can match that. They could wreak havoc upon our navy.

Is that something we want to jump into if we don't have to?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Here's an excellent piece from retired (Air Force) Col. Karen Kwiatkowski. This woman knows what she's talking about.



American Foreign Policy, Part Deux (20 comments )

In a cross between CBS's Survivor and VH1's The Surreal Life, we have George W. Bush's American Foreign Policy Part Deux. You can see it today in the earnestly mendacious efforts of just about every member of the administration and their staff - except for those, like Major General Geoffrey "Gitmo-Everything" Miller, who have stopped talking, having evoked their Fifth Amendment/Article 31 right to avoid self-incrimination.
www.huffingtonpost.com...




[edit on 1/18/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
We don't have anything that can match that.


That you or I know of...



Is that something we want to jump into if we don't have to?


I don't think we should jump into any war if we don't have to, that's why I disagree with the war in Iraq. Iran is a different story, in my eyes anyway. Your points are all valid, and I understand them ECK, but I really don't want to see what will happen if Iran gets nukes. Could be nothing, but my gut feeling tells me otherwise.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
That you or I know of...


We know what they have.

Is that something we want to jump into if we don't have to?


The same crowd that faked us into war with Iraq is busy spinning similar tall tales about Iran. Are you, in good conscience, willing to place your money on that crowd's pics?

I for one, am not. I'm reading the intel, but am not in any way ready to draw a conclusion on Iran's so-called nuke program in any way. There's way too much at stake here.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
For all we know they may already have nukes, who knows? Either way, war should be avoided. I do not have a good feeling about this situation. Iran is a more militarily capable country then Iraq. Not to mention the Geurilla warfare that will take place after the military is taken out.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
We know what they have.


We know what they have that's not classified, you were in the military, do you really think they show their entire hand to any of us?



The same crowd that faked us into war with Iraq is busy spinning similar tall tales about Iran. Are you, in good conscience, willing to place your money on that crowd's pics?

I for one, am not. I'm reading the intel, but am not in any way ready to draw a conclusion on Iran's so-called nuke program in any way. There's way too much at stake here.


You're right. If it were just the Bush and Blair crowd, I would have the same reservations you do. I don't trust those dirty bastards in the slightest. But at this point in time, it's not just them. I'm in no way advocating any rush into anything, not until we know for sure. But I also don't think we should just turn a blind eye and forget about it, there's too much at stake in both cases.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
One thing that worries the hell out of me:

Many of the Mullahs and their Imams believe a war in Iran will happen and the Mahdi will magically appear. Wonder why that nutball president mentioned this guy in a speech? So Iran may not even WANT peace. They probably think this Mahdi will lead them to "Final victory against the Great satan and all enemies of Islam". If youve read Islamic theology you can see the nightmare the Mullahs are hoping for:

-An alliance of convenience with Europe followed by the destruction of the Vatican and converting Europe to Islam by force.

-The destruction of Israel by the "combined" forces of the Mahdi.

-Use of nuclear weapons to vaporize "Great Satan" America.

and so forth. I'm worried if this guy really believes in this stuff, if he does we are in serious SH## ......



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Having been in the military and in my life beyond it, I know what strands to follow. We know that the threat of Iran having a fully mission capable nuke is probably 5 yrs away.

Iran is not Iraq. And the same folks who spun that fiasco are spinning this Iran situation. For that reason alone, I am very wary of their claims (even if the EU-3 seem compliant).



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
One thing that worries the hell out of me:

Many of the Mullahs and their Imams believe a war in Iran will happen and the Mahdi will magically appear. Wonder why that nutball president mentioned this guy in a speech? So Iran may not even WANT peace. They probably think this Mahdi will lead them to "Final victory against the Great satan and all enemies of Islam". If youve read Islamic theology you can see the nightmare the Mullahs are hoping for:


So, how is that any different from American Christians who believe in the biblical Armageddon scenario?

Those ragheads are not American, therefore, their beliefs are BS? Turn it around. Put yourself in their shoes. If you can do that, how do feel then?

As far as I'm concerned, Pat Robertson is as loony and self-absorbed as they come. No different from your garden variety "Al-Qaeda" rabble rouser.

[edit on 1/18/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
How is it different? It's COMPLETELY different. Christendom views the end of times in a fatalistic fashion (prepare to die for your faith- their's nothing you can do but wait for God to return. No raising of swords allowed or your betraying the same God you wait so anxiously for), while the Mullahs want a war of conquest for their faith. BIG difference. Pat Robertson is an Illuminati shill- of the 80,000,000 evangelicals in America less than a million people even tune in to his wretched show.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Nakash]




top topics



 
0
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join