|
Post by Tired in CV on Jan 31, 2012 4:02:56 GMT -5
www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/01/world-economic-forum“Street Fighting Man”. A year ago, the start of the Arab Spring caused considerable excitement and enthusiasm in Davos. This year, the focus was more on the difficulty of democratising the Middle East than the potential for positive change. The most upbeat speaker was Hammadi Jebali, the newly-elected president of Tunisia. On the other hand, there was a growing sense that some sort of military strike against Iran’s nuclear program is inevitable this year, probably led by Israel."A year from now, when gas is $12 a gallon and the world is in a 2nd Great Depression, people will wonder "How did this happen?" Well, it's because even the power elites at Davos are just siitting back and letting it happen. Just like the Clinton administration set the atmosphere that whether Bush or Kerry won the election we were going to be in Iraq (and we were). Obama is setting the stage as well. If he gets re-elected or if Romney gets elected we will most likely have some sort of confrontation with Iran. Gingrich "might" be able to skirt it. Romney is screaming loudest at Obama's military cuts because if he wins the election he will commit troops into Africa fighting the Al Qaida factions there.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 31, 2012 14:27:03 GMT -5
www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/01/world-economic-forum“Street Fighting Man”. A year ago, the start of the Arab Spring caused considerable excitement and enthusiasm in Davos. This year, the focus was more on the difficulty of democratising the Middle East than the potential for positive change. The most upbeat speaker was Hammadi Jebali, the newly-elected president of Tunisia. On the other hand, there was a growing sense that some sort of military strike against Iran’s nuclear program is inevitable this year, probably led by Israel."A year from now, when gas is $12 a gallon and the world is in a 2nd Great Depression, people will wonder "How did this happen?" Well, it's because even the power elites at Davos are just siitting back and letting it happen. Just like the Clinton administration set the atmosphere that whether Bush or Kerry won the election we were going to be in Iraq (and we were). Obama is setting the stage as well. If he gets re-elected or if Romney gets elected we will most likely have some sort of confrontation with Iran. Gingrich "might" be able to skirt it. Romney is screaming loudest at Obama's military cuts because if he wins the election he will commit troops into Africa fighting the Al Qaida factions there. I agree with you on the invasion of Iraq, it was inevitable. (Despite my lib friends claiming my vote for Nader in 2000 made the war possible) But I hadn't even thought about Africa. You don't think Rino Romney will figure out we can't afford to be the world's policeman any more? Businessmen are always more concerned about today's bottom line than right or wrong or the future.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 2, 2012 21:42:30 GMT -5
Once again, as with Libya, I agree with Krauthammer (arrrgghh): www.nationalreview.com/articles/290009/don-t-let-assad-win-charles-krauthammer?pg=2"It’s not just the Sunni Arabs lining up against Assad. Turkey, after a recent flirtation with a Syrian-Iranian-Turkish entente, has turned firmly against Assad, seeing an opportunity to extend its influence, as in Ottoman days, as protector and master of the Sunni Arabs. The alignment of forces suggests a unique opportunity for the West to help finish the job. How? First, a total boycott of Syria, beyond just oil and including a full arms embargo. Second, a flood of aid to the resistance (through Turkey, which harbors both rebel militias and the political opposition, or directly and clandestinely into Syria). Third, a Security Council resolution calling for the removal of the Assad regime. Russia, Assad’s last major outside ally, should be forced to either accede or incur the wrath of the Arab states with a veto." Overthrowing Assad would do a lot more damage to Iran than flying around trying to bomb Iran's dispersed nuclear industry. It would put Iran on notice, "you are next...unless you change your ways."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 3, 2012 23:53:31 GMT -5
All I know is, when gas hits $10 a gallon after we bomb Iran, is that all those people who think they are "above" politics (and I've known many), or can ignore politics, will be in for a rude awakening.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 12, 2012 15:34:24 GMT -5
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122119587120632.html"Washington, DC - These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a possible war with Iran. It is clear that the Israeli government and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it (in which case we would be forced to join in). But the idea of another war in the Middle East is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur. Still, the conventional wisdom holds that it can, because this is an election year and the assumption is that no-one will say no to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Netanyahu will, if the past is any indication, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met with stony silence."
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 3, 2012 18:24:54 GMT -5
What is going on with Iran is not so much as Iran vs the West but is much more about the division between the Sunni and Shia Muslums. It is a racial war between them where the agressor is Iran (Shia) and its puppets. They want the bomb so that they will have additional power to carry out their plans. The "West" just happens to be interferring with their plans and are a good "evil" empire for them to rally their terrorists. Obama's failure with Iraq (possibly on purpose) has left Iran in a position of influencing Iraq and gaining the use of direct traffic (roads) to Syria and Lebonon for support and aid to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrians. Note: most of Irans current influence in Iraq is the southern area where 6 of the major 8 oil producing sectors are. With Lebonon, Syria and Iraq under their control, Iran will have a very large border with which to attack Saudi Arabia (Sunni). Iran also has terrorists working in Yemen. Two major reasons for this, first is that it is a large southern border with Saudi Arabia. Note the intent of attacking Saudi Arabia. The second reason just so happens to be the same as their intent of closing the Strait of Hormuz; it is closing the Bab el Mandeb which is the choke point of the south Red Sea. Note that this puts closure to two oil transit points. Iran intends to control the world oil as it takes out Saudi Arabia and takes its oil fields too. All of this is a racial war between the Sunni and Shia Muslums while it also gives great power to Iran in regards to the rest of the world. Most of the radical Muslums have been Shia. It is interesting to note that in Saudi Arabia, the Shia is treated as a second class citizen. To learn more about that issue, go to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 3, 2012 22:07:38 GMT -5
What is going on with Iran is not so much as Iran vs the West but is much more about the division between the Sunni and Shia Muslums. It is a racial war between them where the agressor is Iran (Shia) and its puppets. They want the bomb so that they will have additional power to carry out their plans. The "West" just happens to be interferring with their plans and are a good "evil" empire for them to rally their terrorists. Obama's failure with Iraq (possibly on purpose) has left Iran in a position of influencing Iraq and gaining the use of direct traffic (roads) to Syria and Lebonon for support and aid to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrians. Note: most of Irans current influence in Iraq is the southern area where 6 of the major 8 oil producing sectors are. With Lebonon, Syria and Iraq under their control, Iran will have a very large border with which to attack Saudi Arabia (Sunni). Iran also has terrorists working in Yemen. Two major reasons for this, first is that it is a large southern border with Saudi Arabia. Note the intent of attacking Saudi Arabia. The second reason just so happens to be the same as their intent of closing the Strait of Hormuz; it is closing the Bab el Mandeb which is the choke point of the south Red Sea. Note that this puts closure to two oil transit points. Iran intends to control the world oil as it takes out Saudi Arabia and takes its oil fields too. All of this is a racial war between the Sunni and Shia Muslums while it also gives great power to Iran in regards to the rest of the world. Most of the radical Muslums have been Shia. It is interesting to note that in Saudi Arabia, the Shia is treated as a second class citizen. To learn more about that issue, go to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam_in_Saudi_ArabiaOf course my favorite part of this Iranian conspiracy to rule the Middle East and it's oil is the part where Obama might be in on it. My question is: Will this happen before or after the Romney-led plot for Mormons to take over America?
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Mar 3, 2012 23:55:09 GMT -5
What is going on with Iran is not so much as Iran vs the West but is much more about the division between the Sunni and Shia Muslums. It is a racial war between them where the agressor is Iran (Shia) and its puppets. They want the bomb so that they will have additional power to carry out their plans. The "West" just happens to be interferring with their plans and are a good "evil" empire for them to rally their terrorists. Obama's failure with Iraq (possibly on purpose) has left Iran in a position of influencing Iraq and gaining the use of direct traffic (roads) to Syria and Lebonon for support and aid to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Syrians. Note: most of Irans current influence in Iraq is the southern area where 6 of the major 8 oil producing sectors are. With Lebonon, Syria and Iraq under their control, Iran will have a very large border with which to attack Saudi Arabia (Sunni). Iran also has terrorists working in Yemen. Two major reasons for this, first is that it is a large southern border with Saudi Arabia. Note the intent of attacking Saudi Arabia. The second reason just so happens to be the same as their intent of closing the Strait of Hormuz; it is closing the Bab el Mandeb which is the choke point of the south Red Sea. Note that this puts closure to two oil transit points. Iran intends to control the world oil as it takes out Saudi Arabia and takes its oil fields too. All of this is a racial war between the Sunni and Shia Muslums while it also gives great power to Iran in regards to the rest of the world. Most of the radical Muslums have been Shia. It is interesting to note that in Saudi Arabia, the Shia is treated as a second class citizen. To learn more about that issue, go to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam_in_Saudi_ArabiaThat is a very astute and insightful post, CV, as usual. I think we also misunderstand what has been going on in Africa, particularly Northern Africa, for a very long time. Their conflicts are also tribal and racial in nature: Arabs versus Africans (oftentimes both Muslims) that has little to do with the West.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 3, 2013 2:57:22 GMT -5
www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201373193719957946.html"Just as unwillingness to deal with the Islamic Republic as a system warps Western diplomacy with Iran, it also undermines the Western position in the Middle East more broadly. For this system's animating idea-integrating Islamist governance and participatory politics-appeals not just in Iran, but to Muslim societies across the region. Iran is the only place where this idea has had sustained, concrete expression, but it is what Middle Eastern Muslims choose every time they are allowed to vote on their political future. America and its European partners disdain coming to terms with this reality, in Iran and elsewhere. Disingenuous rhetoric notwithstanding, Washington still prefers secular authoritarianism-as in its support for the Egyptian coup, a naked effort to restore Mubarakism without Mubarak. Alternatively, the United States works with Saudi Arabia to promote anti-Iranian-and, in the end, anti-American) takfeeri militants, as in Libya and Syria, witlessly disregarding the inevitably negative consequences for its own security. Either way, American policy systematically undermines prospects for moderate and popularly legitimated political Islamism to emerge in Sunni-majority Arab states. Today, with Middle Eastern publics increasingly mobilised and their opinions mattering more than ever, this amounts to strategic suicide for America and its allies. To begin recovering its regional position, Washington must come to terms with the aspirations of Middle Eastern Muslims for participatory Islamist governance. And that can only start by accepting the uniquely Islamist and fiercely independent system bequeathed by Iran's 1979 revolution-the legitimacy of which is powerfully affirmed by Rouhani's accession."
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 7, 2013 18:44:46 GMT -5
Iran had probably financed and supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of Egypt. Once in power they could make the changes to their society and make them easier to take over. Fortunately, the military was not fully embrassing of the "Brotherhood" and when they tried to make to may social changes and the people complained, the military responded. If the military holds strong and with proper elections/replacements, Egypt may go back towards where they were before without the abuses from the President. People in Egypt liked their way of life, they just didn't like the abuses by Hosni Mubarak (National Democratic Party). But Obama doesn't want them to go back their and still supports the "Brotherhood". They, as a government, will remain hating the U.S. under their control. If the new leadership takes them back to where they were without the abuses, they will be a good friend of the U.S. again and a problem for Iran!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 8, 2013 18:30:27 GMT -5
Trying to separate the Muslim World from it's Muslimness, if even possible, is a waste of our time and resources. Not that gung-ho Muslimphobes don't want to try, but Gen X and the Millenials will be sorry if they do IMO. And the fact is, most Muslims don't believe in the separation of rch and state, which is an European concept only a few hundred years old. Of course in many countries around the world, the military is always ready to jump in and take power. Some people like that, as opposed to the chaos of democracy. Apparently a lot of people in our own State Department do, especially since the right took over our foreign policiies in 1950 and haven't let go.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 9, 2013 2:24:17 GMT -5
Trying to separate the Muslim World from it's Muslimness, if even possible, is a waste of our time and resources. Not that gung-ho Muslimphobes don't want to try, but Gen X and the Millenials will be sorry if they do IMO. And the fact is, most Muslims don't believe in the separation of rch and state, which is an European concept only a few hundred years old. Of course in many countries around the world, the military is always ready to jump in and take power. Some people like that, as opposed to the chaos of democracy. Apparently a lot of people in our own State Department do, especially since the right took over our foreign policiies in 1950 and haven't let go. The concept of separation of rch and state is not from Europe. In Europe, like most other countries, the rches were politically linked and the people were governed under heavy influence of the rch. In turn, the rch also became quite political with its parishioners. Most governments embraced ONE religion and this was repressive to those of other religions. The rch of England derived from the Catholic rch but reformed more towards a protestant teaching. This was a joint effort WITH the government as they were STRONG advisors to the government. During the founding of our country, most settlers had settled in areas of similar religions (self segregated; similar to later immigrants) to protect themselves from the government and maintain familiarity with each other. Our founding fathers knew all this and brought everyone together by separating religion and state. While embracing religion, they were very careful in not embracing ONE religion over another. Quite often their references were to a "supreme being" or other words to that effect. When the word God was used it was not specific as to which God, leaving that open to the religious. Most founding fathers were religious and were not all of the same religion. And Thomas Jefferson was probably the most educated concerning various religions.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 9, 2013 9:49:41 GMT -5
Trying to separate the Muslim World from it's Muslimness, if even possible, is a waste of our time and resources. Not that gung-ho Muslimphobes don't want to try, but Gen X and the Millenials will be sorry if they do IMO. And the fact is, most Muslims don't believe in the separation of rch and state, which is an European concept only a few hundred years old. Of course in many countries around the world, the military is always ready to jump in and take power. Some people like that, as opposed to the chaos of democracy. Apparently a lot of people in our own State Department do, especially since the right took over our foreign policiies in 1950 and haven't let go. The concept of separation of rch and state is not from Europe. In Europe, like most other countries, the rches were politically linked and the people were governed under heavy influence of the rch. In turn, the rch also became quite political with its parishioners. Most governments embraced ONE religion and this was repressive to those of other religions. The rch of England derived from the Catholic rch but reformed more towards a protestant teaching. This was a joint effort WITH the government as they were STRONG advisors to the government. During the founding of our country, most settlers had settled in areas of similar religions (self segregated; similar to later immigrants) to protect themselves from the government and maintain familiarity with each other. Our founding fathers knew all this and brought everyone together by separating religion and state. While embracing religion, they were very careful in not embracing ONE religion over another. Quite often their references were to a "supreme being" or other words to that effect. When the word God was used it was not specific as to which God, leaving that open to the religious. Most founding fathers were religious and were not all of the same religion. And Thomas Jefferson was probably the most educated concerning various religions. Everything you say is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 29, 2013 0:18:46 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/28/iran-nuclear-progress-prompts-tighter-sanction/"The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Wednesday that new findings by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency show the need for Washington to significantly broaden U.S. sanctions on Iran in order to prevent the Islamic republic from developing a nuclear weapon. The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency “makes clear that Iran continues to rapidly expand its nuclear weapons program, and underscores the urgency of Congress passing new Iran sanctions legislation into law,” Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York Democrat, said in a statement." "The legislation would require the Obama administration to report more regularly to Congress on the status of Iran’s nuclear program. In general, it would “limit Iran’s access to overseas foreign currency reserves, blacklist more sectors of the economy, and begin to target significant commercial trade with Iran,” Rep. Edward R. Royce, California Republican and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said as lawmakers on the House side weighed the legislation in May." Let's see: A California Republican joining with a New York Democrat to pressure Obama to put more of a squeeze on Iran? What is the alleged difference between the two parties again?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 26, 2013 6:06:54 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-mideast-20131126,0,2768424.story#axzz2lkSd57bU "Condemnation from Israel and angry silence from Saudi Arabia — both key U.S. allies and avowed enemies of Tehran — highlight a profound disquiet about much more than the letter of the preliminary six-month nuclear accord. Antagonism between Iran and the U.S. has been a major factor in the region's web of alliances for more than three decades. Saudi officials view their kingdom and its allies as being engaged in a colossal struggle for regional influence between Islam's two great branches." "From Israel's perspective, Iran is a challenge on many fronts, including in Lebanon, which shares a tense border with Israel that is patrolled by United Nations peacekeepers. Iran's Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, has a powerful military force and tens of thousands of rockets that it can use to target Israel. In Israel, there has been media speculation that Netanyahu would derail the latest U.S.-backed initiative for peace between Israel and the Palestinians in retaliation for the Iran nuclear accord." If both Saudi Arabia and Israel hate this accord, it must be good.
|
|