Conflict with Iran

[BassRevelation1029]

This is a simple thread with a simple poll. If you had to say yes or no: Do you believe the U.S will engage in a "conflict" with Iran within the next few months?

A yes includes any strategic strike and/or mobilization of troops

A no means no physical action taken. A psywar/propaganda campaign falls under this category.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

i don't think so

[132WalrusesInMexico]

I don't think it's likely within the next few months.

[Joe]

i sure as hell hope not.

[guitrguy]

Bush is retarded, but I don't thinks he's that retarded.

[Iskandar]

No way.

[Det_Nosnip]

I would not support an attack on Iran at any time, for any reason.

Honestly, that is about the worst possible thing that we could do. Iran has a sizeable moderate population that had nearly taken over before the Islamic Revolution. If the United States had never supported the Shah of Iran (thus giving Khomenei a scapegoat with which to garner support), it would have been quite possible for Iran to develop into a secular, Democratic government today.

The War in Iraq has, unfortunately, also increased support for Iran's radical elements vis a vis the moderates because of the perceived religious war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. A military invasion of Iran would destroy any lingering support the moderates may have and create an insurgent situation possibly worse than Iraq.

[DBoons Ghost]

If they did they'd be pretty stupid to do so.

We're spread pretty thin as is. There is still a troop presence in Afghanistan remember.

[RNR]

Ahem. The American military presence in Afghanistan could be described as pitiful at best.

/upset canadian.

[mph4ever]

if it is on the agenda of those in power now or the agencies of continuity then i would think it will happen very soon, could keep the gop in power too, mccain would surely win if iran were to pop their head up or look likely to be troublesome

[Smokey D]

Conspiracy theories are so lame. Iran being an October surprise is such a remote possibility it doesn't really bear thinking about, and everyone knows the US isn't really in a position to make war as it is.

[mph4ever]

its not a conspiracy, its an observation, honestly. i don't think it would be october, i think it would be couple of months at most if it were to happen.

[Smokey D]

Observing what exactly?

Iran would actually have to plainly attack either the US or Israel for the US to respond with war and that's not going to happen.

[Der Übermensch]

More sense then invading Iraq...

O wait... to late for that :-\

[mph4ever]

Observing what exactly?

Iran would actually have to plainly attack either the US or Israel for the US to respond with war and that's not going to happen.
i think we've done this before.

simple speculation is probably a better way to put it.

its hypothetical because iran isnt that stupid.
its not a conspiracy theory, because they are lame, right?

[Akira]

It's not going to happen. Bush has far too little support to even think about openly proposing it. The military is totally against the idea, and the public would be too.

If it were to happen though, I'd move to Canada. I'm not joking.

[guitarded_chuck]

Bush might of given the time, but his time is running out. Obama/Clinton definitely won't.

[Independent_CA]

I think there's gonna be some kind of low-scale confrontation at least. A full scale one is iffy.

[Smokey D]

Not before November. That'd just remind everyone why they hate the Republican party.

[BassRevelation1029]

Conspiracy theories are so lame. Iran being an October surprise is such a remote possibility it doesn't really bear thinking about, and everyone knows the US isn't really in a position to make war as it is.
I like how everyone who legitimately questions something is labeled a conspiracy theorist :rolleyes:

Whats lame is your attempt to belittle me or others on questioning a possibility.
No one said anything about an "october surprise" or an imminent threat looming on Iran. In fact, I discard all of those scare articles.

Its obvious the US is in no position for war, but I didn't keep it to strictly war. The fact is that Iran (although not remotely finished with their N-program and claims its not for weapons) is considered a threat to the state of Israel. Historically, we've seen strikes against Iraqi nuclear programs and Syrian nuclear programs. Another strike not only follows, but is a high possibility.

[Sunshine]

If McCain wins, yes.
Otherwise, probably not.

[J Rad]

i wouldn't say it will happen within the next few months but it is possible it could happen at some point in the not too distant future

[Independent_CA]

Its obvious the US is in no position for war, but I didn't keep it to strictly war.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's plenty of guys in my age group (late teens early 20's) that are doing nothing but running around getting high at college or their parents house. All of which are perfect candidates for a draft.


If McCain wins, yes.
Otherwise, probably not.
Why? Much of the government, military, and corporate bureaucracy is going to be the same as it is now, no matter who wins.

[Sunshine]

If McCain wants it bad enough, he'll get it.
And since thats what he wants to do..

[Bfhurricane]

Iran will be a large problem. Ahmadinejad (excuse me if its mispelled) is one of the worst leaders in the world to have nuclear capabilities. I wouldnt be surprised, and wouldnt mind, if pre-emptive air strikes against Iran are discussed within the next year.

[Curve]

Ahmadinejad (excuse me if its mispelled) is one of the worst leaders in the world to have nuclear capabilities.

Explain this plz

[siva_chair]

Ahem. The American military presence in Afghanistan could be described as pitiful at best.

/upset canadian.

I disagree.

Conspiracy theories are so lame. Iran being an October surprise is such a remote possibility it doesn't really bear thinking about, and everyone knows the US isn't really in a position to make war as it is.

I don't think anyone on these forums really knows what the US military is capable of. The fact is we could be running operations within Iran right now and you would probably never hear about it.

Explain this plz

He's a psychotic douche with militant fundamentalist support base. 'Nuff said.

[Smokey D]

I don't think anyone on these forums really knows what the US military is capable of. The fact is we could be running operations within Iran right now and you would probably never hear about it.

It's perfectly acceptable to draw inferences on evidence available to us. On that evidence the US will not go to war and probably couldn't if it wanted to.

He's a psychotic douche with militant fundamentalist support base. 'Nuff said.

He's not psychotic.


I like how everyone who legitimately questions something is labeled a conspiracy theorist

It's a conspiracy theory to think that there is a conspiracy by unnamed individuals who mysteriously control the US will direct the US to war with Iran in order to prop up their own power.



Whats lame is your attempt to belittle me or others on questioning a possibility.
No one said anything about an "october surprise" or an imminent threat looming on Iran. In fact, I discard all of those scare articles.

No his point was, if you notice, directly connected to the possibility of GOP using a war in Iran to keep itself in power by declaring war on Iran or making it seem like Iran declared war on the US before the election in November.


Its obvious the US is in no position for war, but I didn't keep it to strictly war. The fact is that Iran (although not remotely finished with their N-program and claims its not for weapons) is considered a threat to the state of Israel. Historically, we've seen strikes against Iraqi nuclear programs and Syrian nuclear programs. Another strike not only follows, but is a high possibility.

I doubt the US would intervene even to prevent that. Israel might, but probably not.

[siva_chair]

It's perfectly acceptable to draw inferences on evidence available to us. On that evidence the US will not go to war and probably couldn't if it wanted to.

No what I meant was that we simply do not know what the US military is currently doing. I know the US doesn't want an all out war with Iran, that is obvious, but we do not know what steps the US military is capable of (or currently) taking to destabalize the current regime, which is certainly something that we want.

He's not psychotic.

He's pretty crazy.

[Smokey D]

No what I meant was that we simply do not know what the US military is currently doing. I know the US doesn't want an all out war with Iran, that is obvious, but we do not know what steps the US military is capable of (or currently) taking to destabalize the current regime, which is certainly something that we want.

I'm pretty sure there's no underground rebellion happening in Iran at the moment although there are political opposition movements.


He's pretty crazy.

Not really. Everything he's done pretty much has been in the perceived interest of Iran. That that interest conflicts with ours doesn't make him crazy.

But he isn't very tactful. Nor is Bush.

[siva_chair]

I'm pretty sure there's no underground rebellion happening in Iran at the moment although there are political opposition movements.

There are armed resistance parties in Iran. There is also quite a large pro-American movement in Iran, from what I hear from my Persian friend.

Not really. Everything he's done pretty much has been in the perceived interest of Iran. That that interest conflicts with ours doesn't make him crazy.

But he isn't very tactful. Nor is Bush.

In the interest of a theocratic regime, perhaps. But I hesitate to say he acts in the best interest of the Iranian people.

And no, he isn't tactful at all.

[Smokey D]

There are armed resistance parties in Iran. There is also quite a large pro-American movement in Iran, from what I hear from my Persian friend.


Definitely. Most of the middle class is pro-Western (the Revolution cost them quite a lot, actually). But there's no actual rebellion. And I would go as far to say that an actual rebellion would hurt US interests. Constitutionally, Iran is too robust to overthrow in a coup, so I don't really see what the US can do aside from actually going to war or launching special ops.


In the interest of a theocratic regime, perhaps. But I hesitate to say he acts in the best interest of the Iranian people.

Well yeah in the interest of his regime. But most people do that.

[siva_chair]

Definitely. Most of the middle class is pro-Western (the Revolution cost them quite a lot, actually). But there's no actual rebellion. And I would go as far to say that an actual rebellion would hurt US interests. Constitutionally, Iran is too robust to overthrow in a coup, so I don't really see what the US can do aside from actually going to war or launching special ops.

Why do you think an actual popular rebellion hurt US interests at this point? Particularly if it is from a pro-Western source? I am truely curious.

And special ops is probably what would be going on if anything. Our SpecOps could probably send Iran totally into chaos if they needed to. And really with just one simple action....

Well yeah in the interest of his regime. But most people do that.

I know I was just clarifying.

[BassRevelation1029]

It's a conspiracy theory to think that there is a conspiracy by unnamed individuals who mysteriously control the US will direct the US to war with Iran in order to prop up their own power.
Never did I remotely suggest that.

No his point was, if you notice, directly connected to the possibility of GOP using a war in Iran to keep itself in power by declaring war on Iran or making it seem like Iran declared war on the US before the election in November.
what are you talking about/referring to?

I started this thread with one simple question, without an article. Is there something I'm missing?

[Smokey D]

You've clearly missed the post the one you quoted was in answer to.

See
if it is on the agenda of those in power now or the agencies of continuity then i would think it will happen very soon, could keep the gop in power too, mccain would surely win if iran were to pop their head up or look likely to be troublesome


Why do you think an actual popular rebellion hurt US interests at this point? Particularly if it is from a pro-Western source? I am truely curious.


A rebellion, rather than a coup, would have dire implications for oil supplies coming out of Iran.


And special ops is probably what would be going on if anything. Our SpecOps could probably send Iran totally into chaos if they needed to. And really with just one simple action....

I don't think you give Iran's constitution enough credit.

[siva_chair]

A rebellion, rather than a coup, would have dire implications for oil supplies coming out of Iran.

Yes but how much of our oil do we actually get from Iran?

I don't think you give Iran's constitution enough credit.

I was referring to the fact that I believe I read somewhere that Iran produces only 60 percent of its own gasoline. It produces lots of crude oil but only has one major refinery. It imports something like 40 percent of its gasoline and the entire 60 percent is produced at one huge refinery. If this refinery were to suddenly blow up or become non-operational "somehow".....well, you see the point.

Not saying that this is neccessarily the best strategy to take on Iran or anything. Just mentioning that we have the ability to cripple Iran with a fairly simple action.

[Linkinbassist]

Everyone thinks that Iran is some backwards-thinking nation.

For christ sake, americans, please check the station before driving into a train wreck YET AGAIN!

And the Afghan war is a farce, i agree with our upset canadian. My dad rued going out there on tour.

[Akira]

Yes but how much of our oil do we actually get from Iran?



I was referring to the fact that I believe I read somewhere that Iran produces only 60 percent of its own gasoline. It produces lots of crude oil but only has one major refinery. It imports something like 40 percent of its gasoline and the entire 60 percent is produced at one huge refinery. If this refinery were to suddenly blow up or become non-operational "somehow".....well, you see the point.

Not saying that this is neccessarily the best strategy to take on Iran or anything. Just mentioning that we have the ability to cripple Iran with a fairly simple action.

Blowing up Iran's principle refinery would wreak havoc on the country, decimate the economy, and basically end the middle class, don't you think?

[mph4ever]

blowing up something like that would wreak havoc everywhere which is not fair on anyone else. america should keeps its nose out of others business, simply because its only agenda is to improve it own position.

isolationism should win the next election.

[Akira]

blowing up something like that would wreak havoc everywhere which is not fair on anyone else. america should keeps its nose out of others business, simply because its only agenda is to improve it own position.

isolationism should win the next election.

Srs. I wouldn't call myself isolationist by any means, but we need to learn to mind our own business. US foreign policy should have our best interests in mind.

[mph4ever]

Srs. I wouldn't call myself isolationist by any means, but we need to learn to mind our own business. US foreign policy should have our best interests in mind.

next president should withdraw american kids from wars they have no reason to be in and embrace its neighbours in canada and mexico

[dei]

We should withdraw our troops from wherever they are now and then send them off to Canada and Mexico to take what is rightfully ours. North America!

[dei]

We should withdraw our troops from wherever they are now and then send them off to Canada and Mexico to take what is rightfully ours. North America!

[mph4ever]

as long as it isolates you, then yes

[Det_Nosnip]

dei...wtf is with your avatar?

[mph4ever]

it looks like al jolson meets van gogh and hitler

[BassRevelation1029]

Why? Much of the government, military, and corporate bureaucracy is going to be the same as it is now, no matter who wins.
You've clearly missed the post the one you quoted was in answer to.

yes I clearly missed it

our deal still stands

[mph4ever]

am i guilty?

[siva_chair]

Blowing up Iran's principle refinery would wreak havoc on the country, decimate the economy, and basically end the middle class, don't you think?

That is why I said "if we really wanted to cause chaos to Iran..."

I don't see that happening unless we actually declare total war on Iran.

[Det_Nosnip]

Which would be stupid.

[Aaron]

The US Goverment, in my opinion, would not war with Iran as the international community would not lend support. Look at the international reaction to the war in Iraq...

[DxRocker]

there won't be any conflict for the simple reason that the US doesn't have the funds for it anymore. They can barely pay the ongoing conflicts as we speak.

[Aaron]

..because they loose all their money.

[Volumnius Flush]

I don't foresee any confrontation with the Iranian government. We have been in talks/open dialogue/diplomatic relations whatever you want to call it directly with the Iranian government or other governments about the Iranians and nothing has happened thus far. Do I think we should do something? Yes, but will it happen soon? Maybe in the next couple of years, if ever at all.

[Against Miik!]

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_calls_Iran_single_biggest_thre_05122008.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/cheney-lieberman-and-ira_b_60705.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/12/lieberman-begs-petraeus-to-invade-iran/

Doesn't sound to me like we are just gonna let this one go.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If anything was going to happen it would just be bombs falling to **** with them. I doubt there would ever be full scale war.

[Volumnius Flush]

dei...wtf is with your avatar?

It looks like Ted Danson in blackface.

[Virus278]

almost definitely a "no". Too much public opposition. I don't know the exact number but I know very few Americans support the war in Iraq anymore.

[WhoDidTheElf]

almost definitely a "no". Too much public opposition. I don't know the exact number but I know very few Americans support the war in Iraq anymore.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html

It seems it's at it's highest point yet. 53%. Small majority, yeah, but still far from "very few."

[Virus278]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html

It seems it's at it's highest point yet. 53%. Small majority, yeah, but still far from "very few."

Wow, didn't know that. Still though, I don't think that's a high enough amount of public support to start another war. Also, keep in mind that the number of Americans who would support starting a war in Iran would be less than the number of Americans who currently support the war in Iraq.

[mph4ever]

Wow, didn't know that. Still though, I don't think that's a high enough amount of public support to start another war. Also, keep in mind that the number of Americans who would support starting a war in Iran would be less than the number of Americans who currently support the war in Iraq.


according to the dept. of defence, the war in iraq is going well, troop casualties are down, things are improving and public opinion is starting to be positive in relation to "leaving the region stable". up pops iran, threatens to destablise the whole region and threatens israel, america would have to intervene and probably with popular support. now thats scary. thing is, i don't think the iranians are that stupid.

[BassRevelation1029]

they don't have to. The U.S can say anything about Iran and people will believe it.

[Jude]

Unless another convenient terrorist attack happens and Bush can say al Qaeda is hiding in Iran now, there's no way he could pull it off....even though he clearly wants to.

[Independent_CA]

If there's one thing the government has proven without a doubt under the Bush Administration, it's that they don't give two shits about public opinion.

[BassRevelation1029]

Unless another convenient terrorist attack happens and Bush can say al Qaeda is hiding in Iran now, there's no way he could pull it off....even though he clearly wants to.

are you not seeing whats occurring? The US is now blaming Iran for funding the militias in Iraq and supplying them with weapons, contrary to all evidence. Thats a case in itself, along with the "Iran is a threat to Israel with its n-program" case. However the former seems like a case for a major operation, and the latter is an argument for a strategic strike.

[Virus278]

Unless another convenient terrorist attack happens and Bush can say al Qaeda is hiding in Iran now, there's no way he could pull it off....even though he clearly wants to.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened.

[WhoDidTheElf]

are you not seeing whats occurring? The US is now blaming Iran for funding the militias in Iraq and supplying them with weapons, contrary to all evidence. Thats a case in itself, along with the "Iran is a threat to Israel with its n-program" case. However the former seems like a case for a major operation, and the latter is an argument for a strategic strike.

Can you provide any evidence for either claim? To be honest, all the evidence I've ever heard on the news does actually support that claim. Still isn't enough to go to war though.

[Volumnius Flush]

I honestly don't see any major intervention or pre-emptive measure taken by the US. Possibly the Israelis and maybe even with air support from the US, but I honestly do not believe the situation will be handled until it is too late.

[BassRevelation1029]

Can you provide any evidence for either claim? To be honest, all the evidence I've ever heard on the news does actually support that claim.
-You must have missed yesterday's events where General Bergner did not blame any of the 20,000 weapons found on Iran. The Iraqi government also stated there is "no conclusive evidence" that Iran is funding any of the militias
-Iran's N-program, which they claim is not for weapons, will not be completed anywhere in the next 10 years. Not to mention, the United States' very own intelligence estimate made claims contrary to the neocons in washington.

Still isn't enough to go to war though.
Thats more than enough.

[Smokey D]

It's pretty clear that America considers Iran a threat to it's interests in the region. It's also pretty clear that any attack on Iran would jeopardise America's interests to a far greater extent. Why don't you people get this?

If America could get away with neutralising the Islamic Revolution, they would have done it years ago. An attack on Iran would only bolster anti-US feeling, strengthen pro-Islamicist groups and severely stretch US capabilities. A war isn't going to happen.

[BassRevelation1029]

It's pretty clear that America considers Iran a threat to it's interests in the region. It's also pretty clear that any attack on Iran would jeopardise America's interests to a far greater extent. Why don't you people get this?

A war isn't going to happen.
again, notice the difference between 'war' and 'conflict.'

A strike can be done in conjunction with Israel, though it will be difficult in this situation.

Edit: This may not go further than a psywar, but I don't see why the U.S would put so much effort into this. The rest of the region is not going to isolate them regardless of what we say about them.

[Smokey D]

The US isn't concerned with the region isolating them (although Iran already has enemies in the Gulf states). It wants for the great powers to isolate them, which is quite different.

A psywar isn't a war, and a strike, while possible, is unlikely.

[BassRevelation1029]

The US isn't concerned with the region isolating them
Bush has urged the region to isolate them in his visit to the area a few months ago. Unless there's some hidden agenda you know about..

(although Iran already has enemies in the Gulf states). It wants for the great powers to isolate them, which is quite different.
it really makes no difference. They won't persuade them by the means which they are doing now.

A psywar isn't a war
I already stated that

, and a strike, while possible, is unlikely.
History disagrees with you.

[Smokey D]

Bush has urged the region to isolate them in his visit to the area a few months ago. Unless there's some hidden agenda you know about..

No doubt he'd be happy if they did, but that's not his main concern.

it really makes no difference. They won't persuade them by the means which they are doing now.

I dunno about that. Most of the big 5 seem to have come around to the idea of sanctions.

History disagrees with you.

Things were different in 1982.

[BassRevelation1029]

I dunno about that. Most of the big 5 seem to have come around to the idea of sanctions.
true


Things were different in 1982.
Now the Israeli's have much better capabilities, though this will be different because the nuclear facilities are 1) numerous and 2) underground.

Still doable.

[Independent_CA]

I dunno about that. Most of the big 5 seem to have come around to the idea of sanctions.

Sanctions, ha!

[BassRevelation1029]

Sanctions, ha!

thats my reaction too, then I think of the disastrous sanctions placed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

These sanctions will undoubtedly have a far lesser effect. I don't think the US will settle.

[Smokey D]

Given that Iran isn't a dictatorship and the people have recourse, albeit restricted, to change their government, sanctions are much more likely to have a noticeable effect on Iran. Most people are already sick of Ahmenidinejad because his economic policies are failing.

[joshmay]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1371/1237598907_68c629cb89.jpg

[Independent_CA]

Given that Iran isn't a dictatorship and the people have recourse, albeit restricted, to change their government, sanctions are much more likely to have a noticeable effect on Iran. Most people are already sick of Ahmenidinejad because his economic policies are failing.

Unless the Iranian public puts a government in place that is willing to give in to US interests in the region, I don't think we'll hear the end of it.

[Smokey D]

There have been plenty of governments in Iran that would like to accommodate (but probably not subordinate themselves to) the US. Ahmenidinejad is a radical in Iran as well as in the West.

[Jude]

I dunno about that. Most of the big 5 seem to have come around to the idea of sanctions.





That would also be bad, both because it punishes the people as much as or more than the government, and it also will nourish terrorism and anti-Americanism just like a war would.

Also, "Islamist" is bad enough, can we not use the word "Islamicist", like, ever? And forget that it was ever spoken?

[Smokey D]

Depending on how sanctions are implemented, they need not be as bad as war. In fact, it's a massive stretch to say they would have anywhere near the same degree off effect. It's not even clear that they would result in the same type of reaction, at least not in all sectors of Iranian society. Iran has a very large middle class with a very big grudge against the Revolution let alone populists like Ahmenedinejad. If the sanctions were properly targeted, they could be used to inspire a rejection of Ahmenedinejad's policies. There is already a substantinal number of people who think that while they deserve nuclear power that it's not worth the cost they're facing.

Also, "Islamist" is bad enough, can we not use the word "Islamicist", like, ever? And forget that it was ever spoken?

Why would we do that when it describes the particular nature of the type of ideology we're facing? Islamic is not Islamist or Islamicist. Who said it anyway?

[mph4ever]

did anybody else get this email? it just arrived in my inbox on my private email account


From: laltralombardia@laltralombardia.it [mailto:laltralombardia@laltralombardia.it]
Sent: 14 May 2008 15:14
To: ml-it@autprol.org; forum_sitocuc@yahoogroups.com; aa-forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ml-it] War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think

War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think

By Philip Giraldi

Global Research, May 13, 2008

The American Conservative

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.
The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran.
The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

Associazione L'altra Lombardia - SU LA TESTA
Sede nazionale Milano
e-mail : laltralombardia@laltralombardia.it
telefoni : 339 195 66 69 oppure 338 987 58 98
sito internet www.laltralombardia.it
************************************************** **********
E' uscito il nostro nuovo filmato "Libano e Palestina:
due popoli in lotta contro l'imperialismo"
leggi la scheda http://www.laltralombardia.it/public/docs/filmatolibano.html
Siamo disponibili per presentazioni.
Scrivete a laltralombardia@laltralombardia.it
************************************************** **********
Aderite sostenete sottoscrivete per L'altra Lombardia - SU LA TESTA Conto corrente postale n. 57426959
intestato a Francesca Rodella
************************************************** **********
Per non ricevere più messaggi:
inviare una mail vuota a questo indirizzo con oggetto:
CANCELLA A norma della legge 675/96 questo messaggio non è
da considerarsi spam perché reca un'opzione di
cancellazione.

[Jude]

Depending on how sanctions are implemented, they need not be as bad as war. In fact, it's a massive stretch to say they would have anywhere near the same degree off effect. It's not even clear that they would result in the same type of reaction, at least not in all sectors of Iranian society. Iran has a very large middle class with a very big grudge against the Revolution let alone populists like Ahmenedinejad. If the sanctions were properly targeted, they could be used to inspire a rejection of Ahmenedinejad's policies. There is already a substantinal number of people who think that while they deserve nuclear power that it's not worth the cost they're facing.

Remember what sanctions did to Iraq?
And it does punish the people - hence more bad feelings against America, not to mention that it's inherently bad to punish people for their autocratic government's actions.


Why would we do that when it describes the particular nature of the type of ideology we're facing? Islamic is not Islamist or Islamicist.
I guess it's necessary to have two different words to distinguish Muslims from radicals/terrorists that are Muslim but having "Islam" in the word makes it sound like somebody who really really follows Islam is necessarily a terrorist...not to mention that, completely apart from the meaning, the words just piss me off - no idea why. They just grate my nerves.

Who said it anyway?
Uh, you

[Smokey D]

Remember what sanctions did to Iraq?

Okay yeah but the difference is that in Iraq Saddam shot anyone who attempted to change government policy but in Iran ordinary Iranians can change government relatively easily. Although they can't displace the mullahhs they can choose between candidates who sometimes appear at least as divergent as the Democrats and Republicans.


And it does punish the people - hence more bad feelings against America, not to mention that it's inherently bad to punish people for their autocratic government's actions.


Iran's not autocratic.

And as I say, there's a lot of people willing to blame Ahmenedinejad in particular and the Islamic Revolution in general for these hardships, at least while they concurrently blame the US.

I guess it's necessary to have two different words to distinguish Muslims from radicals/terrorists that are Muslim but having "Islam" in the word makes it sound like somebody who really really follows Islam is necessarily a terrorist...not to mention that, completely apart from the meaning, the words just piss me off - no idea why. They just grate my nerves.

I try to be careful in distinguishing between Islamic and Muslim and Islamist. An Islamist is more than just a Muslim who happens to be radical or a terrorist. It denotes a specific view of Islam.


Uh, you

I thought you meant me but I looked back over the thread and couldn't find the term.

[Jude]

Okay yeah but the difference is that in Iraq Saddam shot anyone who attempted to change government policy but in Iran ordinary Iranians can change government relatively easily. Although they can't displace the mullahhs they can choose between candidates who sometimes appear at least as divergent as the Democrats and Republicans.

So? I wouldn't appreciate being punished by sanctions for what Bush is doing.


Iran's not autocratic.
OK wrong word choice


And as I say, there's a lot of people willing to blame Ahmenedinejad in particular and the Islamic Revolution in general for these hardships, at least while they concurrently blame the US.
And as I say, lots of Iraqis were (rightly) willing to blame Saddam for their hardships under him, but look where sanctioning and then attacking him got us (them).



I thought you meant me but I looked back over the thread and couldn't find the term.
It's 2 or 3 pages back.

It's pretty clear that America considers Iran a threat to it's interests in the region. It's also pretty clear that any attack on Iran would jeopardise America's interests to a far greater extent. Why don't you people get this?

If America could get away with neutralising the Islamic Revolution, they would have done it years ago. An attack on Iran would only bolster anti-US feeling, strengthen pro-Islamicist groups and severely stretch US capabilities. A war isn't going to happen.

Anyway it's just a pet peeve of mine really

[Smokey D]

So? I wouldn't appreciate being punished by sanctions for what Bush is doing.

Sure but the question is who do they blame more: Bush (or whoever will be the president) or Ahmenedinejad? I don't think it's automatic that Ahmenedinejad won't be blamed.



And as I say, lots of Iraqis were (rightly) willing to blame Saddam for their hardships under him, but look where sanctioning and then attacking him got us (them).


But the majority of Iraqis hated Saddam even more than they hate the US. And as I say it is a mistake to confuse the reaction to the sanctions on Iraq as automatically the same type of response reactions on Iran will have.



It's 2 or 3 pages back.

Quote maybe?

[Jude]

Sure but the question is who do they blame more: Bush (or whoever will be the president) or Ahmenedinejad? I don't think it's automatic that Ahmenedinejad won't be blamed.

But the majority of Iraqis hated Saddam even more than they hate the US. And as I say it is a mistake to confuse the reaction to the sanctions on Iraq as automatically the same type of response reactions on Iran will have.

This is going nowhere.


Quote maybe?

Um it's already there...

[BassRevelation1029]

Given that Iran isn't a dictatorship and the people have recourse, albeit restricted, to change their government, sanctions are much more likely to have a noticeable effect on Iran.
not at all likely.

U.S pressure will not bring division to the country

[Iskandar]

"Islamism" is not really a single coherent ideology. Js js.

[Jude]

That too
If you're going to use the word, at least make it consistent and not just a buzzword for anybody with a beard, a gun and a grudge against America

[mph4ever]

like castro

[Jude]

yeah

[Smokey D]

not at all likely.

U.S pressure will not bring division to the country

I'm not saying division. I'm saying that they might elect someone less inclined to jeopardise Iran's economy for the prestige of nuclear technology. Why is that so unforeseeable?

This is going nowhere.

So you don't think it's possible for sanctions to have a different effect on a democracy than on a dictatorship?

"Islamism" is not really a single coherent ideology. Js js.

I never said it was. I said it describes a certain type of thinking about Islam. I was gonna say that there are many different ways of thinking in an Islamist fashion but I thought everybody knew that.


If you're going to use the word, at least make it consistent and not just a buzzword for anybody with a beard, a gun and a grudge against America

I try not to use Islamiscist. That was a typo.

But thanks for insinuating I'm a hillbilly.

[BassRevelation1029]

I'm not saying division. I'm saying that they might elect someone less inclined to jeopardise Iran's economy for the prestige of nuclear technology. Why is that so unforeseeable?

its unlikely
you really think Iranian's are just gonna roll over when Americans push them?

I try not to use Islamiscist. That was a typo.

But thanks for insinuating I'm a hillbilly.
:lol:
He meant that description for the word "Islamicist"

[Smokey D]

its unlikely
you really think Iranian's are just gonna roll over when Americans push them?

No.

But Ahmadinejad is pretty widely reviled in Iran and he gets blamed for pretty much everything that goes wrong. Given that he's so widely disliked, I see no reason to think that Iranians will keep him in power when his policies are hurting their own interests just to spite the US.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jan/1295.html

[BassRevelation1029]

Given that he's so widely disliked

By who? The United States?

If you mean his country, the conservatives just won an election not too long ago.

I see no reason to think that Iranians will keep him in power when his policies are hurting their own interests just to spite the US.
This is all irrelevant, since the Mullahs will still be in power. The next President will be branded as "worse than Ahmadinejad" until Americans realize the Islamic Clerics are at the top, and the U.S is not targeting a figure, but rather a policy that doesn't fall in line with theirs.

[Smokey D]

By who? The United States?

If you mean his country, the conservatives just won an election not too long ago

After the mullahs disallowed most of the liberal candidates.

This is all irrelevant, since the Mullahs will still be in power. The next President will be branded as "worse than Ahmadinejad" until Americans realize the Islamic Clerics are at the top, and the U.S is not targeting a figure, but rather a policy that doesn't fall in line with theirs.

Sure but the mullahs are much less inclined to be combative with the US than people like Ahmadinejad. Khatami, Ahmadinejad's predecessor was far more restrained in his dealing with the west than the current government is. Ahmadinejad's bombastic policies are not inherent in the Iranian system and they aren't desired, necessarily, by everyone, not even teh mullahs.

"A poll by Baztab showed that 62.5 percent of those that voted for Ahmadinejad would not elect him again.[citation needed] Among those that did not vote for him in the first election, only 3.5 percent said they would consider voting for him in the next election.[52] At one point in 2006, vegetables prices tripled and housing prices doubled within a matter of months, leading to calls by Iranians for Ahmadinejad to focus on the economy rather than disputes with the West.[citation needed] Mohammad Khoshchehreh, a member of Iranian parliament that campaigned for Ahmadinejad, said that his government "has been strong on populist slogans, but weak on achievement."[53]"

[BassRevelation1029]

After the mullahs disallowed most of the liberal candidates.
as I said, the Mullah's are the real power, almost similar to the US elite.



Sure but the mullahs are much less inclined to be combative with the US than people like Ahmadinejad.
But the real issue is not the U.S, but the U.S' interest. Iran will continue in 'hostile' speech about Israel, and will continue it's N-program, while the U.S continues to blame the country for Shiite militants in Iraq.

The leader wont change anything but domestic issues, like the economy. The foreign policy is unlikely to drastically change unless the U.S instills another slave government.

[Smokey D]

as I said, the Mullah's are the real power, almost similar to the US elite.


Although the mullahs have far greater power than any elite in the US, they don't make all the policy decisions in Iran. Who gets elected president does actually have some effect.


But the real issue is not the U.S, but the U.S' interest. Iran will continue in 'hostile' speech about Israel, and will continue it's N-program, while the U.S continues to blame the country for Shiite militants in Iraq.

No the real issue is whether a new Iranian leader would continue doing those things. As I say, Khatami was nothing like Ahmadinejad.



The leader wont change anything but domestic issues, like the economy. The foreign policy is unlikely to drastically change unless the U.S instills another slave government.

Ahmadinejad's foreign policy is considerably different to Khatami's.

[BassRevelation1029]

No the real issue is whether a new Iranian leader would continue doing those things. As I say, Khatami was nothing like Ahmadinejad.
I liken this to the US's current situation. Its doubtful that Obama as President will pull the troops even within a year of coming into power. Its just as doubtful that a new President will put an end to the policies in place, assuming the new president is not an advocate for reform like Khatami

[Smokey D]

It's certainly not inconceivable.

[Amit]

what conflict with iran

are people just playing darts with a map of the middle east now or what

[BassRevelation1029]

It's certainly not inconceivable.

As inconceivable as a full-scale war on Iran

[Pop music sucks]

If they did they'd be pretty stupid to do so.

We're spread pretty thin as is. There is still a troop presence in Afghanistan remember.One-hundred and twenty-three

The US military is barely managing as it is.

[Smokey D]

As inconceivable as a full-scale war on Iran

You fully underestimate the latitude given to presedential governments in Iran.

[mph4ever]

personally, i don't feel anybody has a say in this. if america wants war then america will have war, foreign policy tends not to consider what is going on in the target country. if they don't need a war then there won't be one. america's ambitions will be met, they tend not to think about the consequences for others

[Smokey D]

Foreign policy does very much consider what's going on in the target country. I agreet hat it's due to America's interests, but it's a lot more complex than a simple division between foreign and domestic policy.

[Hababi]

Although the mullahs have far greater power than any elite in the US, they don't make all the policy decisions in Iran. Who gets elected president does actually have some effect.


Some effect yes but ultimately the mullahs are going to make the decisions with the most significant long term consequences. From all that I've read (and I don't stay as up to date on Iran as say, Zimbabwe), a pretty significant chunk of the population of Iran supports Ahmedinejad's nuclear push but not his blustering and his regime hasn't exactly been the best domestically.

So hopefully the next one will be a (relative) reformer.

[Smokey D]

Sure but people misktakenly think that just because Iran isn't a liberal democracy it's a totalitarian state. The mullahs have a lot of power but they don't decide all aspects of policy. Many Irainians are reaching the position that while the want nuclear power, they don't want to suffer the consequences of trying to get it and they especially don't like Ahmadinejad's bombasticism.

[mph4ever]

Foreign policy does very much consider what's going on in the target country. I agreet hat it's due to America's interests, but it's a lot more complex than a simple division between foreign and domestic policy.

agreed, i don't think it is a simple division between domestic and foreign policy. it is a lot more complex than that. the state of the domestic economy is a big driver in terms of foreign policy. however, at the end of the day, if america feels it needs a war with iran, as they have shown with afghanistan and iraq, to make the entire region stable eventually then they will have it. its is short term pain for america and israel if it means that the whole region settles down. whats ten more years, or twenty more years of conflict, a few trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of american kid's lives in return for peace and tranquility, and control of the region for evermore?

[Smokey D]

If America feels they need a war, they will go to war. But the internal workings of Iran will determine whether America feels it needs to go to war. Unless Iran does something really stupid I don't see it happening.

[mph4ever]

thats one view. i seriously don't think internal iranian affairs will have anything to do with. they are already meddling with n-power and will continue to do so. thats "stupid" enough for america and israel to strike anytime they like.

how the election goes for the gop?

and

how many young american men are idle and looking likely to need some sort of state support during the recession?

may very well have an impact.

[Smokey D]

Of course internal affairs matter because internal affairs are what concerns the US.

[mph4ever]

Of course internal affairs matter because internal affairs are what concerns the US.


its funny the way america looks to address their internal affairs with intervention. i know they bring a lot to the table globally but sometimes i do wish they would, as i have repeatedly said, assume a little bit more of an isolationist role. realistically though, the americans and their allies are in too deep for the time being and so we must wait until they make their next move, as ever the ball is in their court

[monkeysonmars.]

I think America policing the world is better than nobody. I mean seriously imagine the UN being the only body of international security. If you remove the single greatest military power from the international scene you completely change the dynamic of the international system, we live in such a stable (yeah i said stable) system precisely because America makes everything its business, and who's going to argue with that?

[Mister Groovy]

I think America policing the world is better than nobody. I mean seriously imagine the UN being the only body of international security. If you remove the single greatest military power from the international scene you completely change the dynamic of the international system, we live in such a stable (yeah i said stable) system precisely because America makes everything its business, and who's going to argue with that?

America has done such a great job with enforcing its policing on the last few countries that stepped out of line

[monkeysonmars.]

I think America policing the world is better than nobody.

...

[guitrguy]

I really think the Iran war rhetoric is just a bunch of saber rattling.

[mph4ever]

...

i'm not sure they are policing it. they are acting agressively towards countries. these countries and their stability are important to american interests. american actions are in americas interests, they couldn't give a toss about anyone else

i think jello said it best nearly 30 years ago with these two little pieces

Bleed for me

In the name of world peace
In the name of world profit
America pumps up our secret police
America wants fuel
To get it, it needs puppets
So what's ten million dead?
If it's keeping out the Russians

and

When cowboy Ronnie comes to town
Forks out his tongue at Human rights


all we have to do is change ronnie for that slime bag geogie bush

[monkeysonmars.]

well if you want to call it imperialistic or any other name the point is it's keeping the world relatively safe.

[Mister Groovy]

well if you want to call it imperialistic or any other name the point is it's keeping the world relatively safe.

Not safe from America which in the past 7 years has directly ruined 2 countries

[monkeysonmars.]

relatively safe.

...

[Mister Groovy]

The world would be a lot safer if we hadn't done the "policing" that we have in the last 7 years

[Hababi]

The world would be a lot safer if we hadn't done the "policing" that we have in the last 7 years

Hmmm well let's invision this. We'll start backwards from so called 'policing' (that is, any level of intervention).

The Islamic Court would control Somalia, giving jihadists an open sanctuary, from which they could wage attacks on Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, etc. and plan and train for attacks on America.

Iraq would be under the control of Saddam Hussein. Systemic mass executions, torture, and complete repression would persist. Soon his sons would take over, unleashing their reign of terror nationwide (I'll remind you that Ude Hussein was a serial rapist).

Afghanistan would continue to suffer under the Taliban, having a fanatical brand of Sharia law imposed on its citizens while the country serves as a training ground for attacks to destabalize the region and hit America and its allies.

You may think that that's a better scenario, but I sure don't.

[monkeysonmars.]

go back to '99 and you've got some serious ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. And good luck to the UN in any humanitarian intervention involving human rights anytime in the foreseeable future. Not to mention we'd be back to a multipolar international system which is the most unstable there is.

[Mister Groovy]

Hmmm well let's invision this. We'll start backwards from so called 'policing' (that is, any level of intervention).

The Islamic Court would control Somalia, giving jihadists an open sanctuary, from which they could wage attacks on Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, etc. and plan and train for attacks on America.

Iraq would be under the control of Saddam Hussein. Systemic mass executions, torture, and complete repression would persist. Soon his sons would take over, unleashing their reign of terror nationwide (I'll remind you that Ude Hussein was a serial rapist).

Afghanistan would continue to suffer under the Taliban, having a fanatical brand of Sharia law imposed on its citizens while the country serves as a training ground for attacks to destabalize the region and hit America and its allies.

You may think that that's a better scenario, but I sure don't.
It's real easy to speculate and make up potential alternate courses of history but in fact, the massive amount of death, carnage, destruction and breeding of hatred that has taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan would have not happened at all and ongoing dictatorship, while bad, would have been nowhere near as bad as what has actually happened

[monkeysonmars.]

It's real easy to speculate and make up potential alternate courses of history
ongoing dictatorship, while bad, would have been nowhere near as bad as what has actually happened

nice one.

[Akira]

Steve, I worry about you sometimes.

You seriously feel safer as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Hababi]

Steve, I worry about you sometimes.

You seriously feel safer as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I feel safer as a result of Afghanistan, absolutely. I don't see a reasonable case to make for the contrary. With Iraq, I feel neither more or less secure, but in the long run, the Iraqi people have the potential to be MUCH better off. Can you imagine what life would've been like for people in Iraq under the unchecked reign of Ude Hussein and his brother?

[guitrguy]

Thats assuming there wasn't a coup during the transition period.

[Hababi]

Thats assuming there wasn't a coup during the transition period.

Yes, but I think that's a safe enough assumption to make.

[guitrguy]

Idk, it seems to me the hussein made enough enemies within the country for it to happen. Either way its a pretty moot. Heck I probably shouldn't have posted that.

[BassRevelation1029]

You fully underestimate the latitude given to presedential governments in Iran.

No I just don't see a drastic change in Iran's foreign policy from the next President, again given that he is not a reformist.

[Mister Groovy]

the Iraqi people have the potential to be MUCH better off.
Except the hundreds of thousands dead, injured, widowed or orphans whose lives are going to be miserable awful thanks to the war
I'm sure they'd feel better if you told them that their fellow Iraqis' grandchildren are going to be better off and their sacrifice is worth it


Can you imagine what life would've been like for people in Iraq under the unchecked reign of Ude Hussein and his brother?
Bad but not this bad

[Hababi]

Except the hundreds of thousands dead, injured, widowed or orphans whose lives are going to be miserable awful thanks to the war


Saddam Hussein killed roughly a million people during his reign. Ude Hussein would've killed hundreds of thousands more, at least.


Bad but not this bad


You do know things aren't as bad now, right? Kurdistan is very peaceful, beyond some tensions with Turkey. Several other regions are ok, too. There are a few hotspots. The rest of the country is ok. And things are continuing to improve.

[Amit]

wait

saddam hussein killed roughly a million people during his reign...?

my question is if we are suddenly supposed to be saving the lives of the downtrodden why haven't we gone after far worse regimes like north korea or china or just about any horrible place in africa

[Smokey D]

The world would be a lot safer if we hadn't done the "policing" that we have in the last 7 years

The absence of a hegemon in the international system encourages conflict.

But I don't know whether that's better or worse than when the hegemon itself engages in conflict. It probably depends on the facts.

[BridgeToSolace]

Saddam Hussein killed roughly a million people during his reign. Ude Hussein would've killed hundreds of thousands more, at least.

How many hundreds of thousands did we kill by funding the contras and ****ing up Iran and other stuff?

[Amit]

you forgot vietnam and afghanistan (the part where we were funding the mujahideen) :lol:

[BassRevelation1029]

The absence of a hegemon in the international system encourages conflict.


I disagree, mostly with your word choice, although conflict without a hegemon would be natural.

A hegemon only discourages conflict when its in their interest to do so.

[Smokey D]

I didn't say that a hegemon necessarily discourages conflict (although in most cases it does because the absence of conflict is generally beneficial to the hegemon's interests). I said that with no hegemon, rival states are more likely to engage in conflict. I don't think you disagree with this last part given you said "although conflict without a hegemon would be natural".

[Iskandar]

The absence of a hegemon in the international system encourages conflict.How do you figure that? It's not like Somalian warlords care what the US thinks of them.

[BassRevelation1029]

(although in most cases it does because the absence of conflict is generally beneficial to the hegemon's interests)
"generally" doesn't cut it. I'm sure a world superpower couldn't care less about a conflict of two poor nations.

. I said that with no hegemon, rival states are more likely to engage in conflict. I don't think you disagree with this last part given you said "although conflict without a hegemon would be natural".
Yes, I agree with you because conflict is natural. I disagree with its opposite, that a hegemon would discourage conflict.

[Smokey D]

"generally" doesn't cut it. I'm sure a world superpower couldn't care less about a conflict of two poor nations.

Note the reduction in the number of conflicts and the number of severe conflicts when there is a clear hegemonic player in the game. Hegemons have a tendency to enforce peace because war disrupts trade and that hurts the hegemon. Also, state actors are less likely to engage in war in the first place if they know they will be reigned in by the hegemon. Over the 19th century, when Britain was the hegemon, there were relatively few wars, excluding colonial ones which I suppose fits your argument. However, after the German empire unified and Britain's hegemonic position was eroded, conflict became much more common.

You are right though that when the hegemon has few if any interests in an area it won't expend resources to maintain peace there, provided the disruption doesn't spread. Conversely if it does have interests there and they are being threatened or else the hegemon is being excluded, it is much more likely to go to war. But the nature of hegemony is that actors are less likely, although it's still possible, to resist the boss.

ie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Sinica
and, possibly to a lesser extent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana


Yes, I agree with you because conflict is natural. I disagree with its opposite, that a hegemon would discourage conflict.

Sure but I didn't say that it did, necessarily. There are two processes here, as I mentioned above: 1) where the hegemon imposes peace (not that frequent) and 2) where non-hegemonic powers reign themselves in for fear of dispeasing the hegemon (much more common). Either of these or a combination of both would encourage a reduction in conflicts.


How do you figure that? It's not like Somalian warlords care what the US thinks of them.

Maybe not but lot's of other powers who might otherwise be willing to go to war do.

[BassRevelation1029]

Note the reduction in the number of conflicts and the number of severe conflicts when there is a clear hegemonic player in the game.
are we talking about peoples that have been engaged in conflict for thousands of years, rendering it natural, or are we talking about a clash based on policy?

The former is where I don't believe the hegemon will really have any say-so.


Hegemons have a tendency to enforce peace because war disrupts trade and that hurts the hegemon.
That would fall under their interests, then. We can't generalize this, though, as "all war disrupts trade."
Trade can be disrupted in peaceful situations, and its the world superpower that initiates conflict.

Over the 19th century, when Britain was the hegemon, there were relatively few wars, excluding colonial ones which I suppose fits your argument.
Britain was more than a hegemon.

I may be a little off, but there's quite a difference between being an empire and having a heavy influence on a region.

But the nature of hegemony is that actors are less likely, although it's still possible, to resist the boss.
Oh of course.
But resisting the boss is different from fighting with the co-worker.

[Smokey D]

are we talking about peoples that have been engaged in conflict for thousands of years, rendering it natural, or are we talking about a clash based on policy?

The former is where I don't believe the hegemon will really have any say-so.


I'm talking about people who, recognising that the hegemon will act to intervene if they enter conflict, are less likely to engage in wars.

That would fall under their interests, then. We can't generalize this, though, as "all war disrupts trade."

We can generalise it. Trade is generally harmed by war.

There might be some specific examples where trade is furthered by war and in that case I'd expect the hegemon to allow the war or prosecute it itself. But those are relatively rare, and usually occur when a state is attempting to exempt itself from hegemonic control.


Trade can be disrupted in peaceful situations, and its the world superpower that initiates conflict.

I don't see this as relevant to the argument that the presence of a hegemon stabilises the international system.

Britain was more than a hegemon.

I may be a little off, but there's quite a difference between being an empire and having a heavy influence on a region.

Britain was an empire within the imperial borders and a hegemon without them. Pretty much every foreign policy decision anybody made was done with Britain in mind somewhere in the process.


Oh of course.
But resisting the boss is different from fighting with the co-worker.

But if the hegemon has interests in preventing conflict between two parties, then it is liable to restrict any potential conflict.

I want to make clear that I'm not saying hegemons restrict conflict out of humanitarianism. Hegemons shape the system to their interests and then seek to preserve the status quo. There is less conflict because all the important wars occur at the beginning of the hegemonic period when the hegemon establishes itself as such. Taken as a whole, it's quite possible that the net amount of violence is the same. But during the tome where the hegemon's rule goes unchallenged, conflict is less likely.

[Seafroggys]

Not safe from America which in the past 7 years has directly ruined 2 countries

Er, one country (unless you count the US ruining itself).

Iraq is far worse off, but Afghanistan was so far down the shitter under the Taliban, it could not literally get any worse than it was. I'm sure it is much better today.

[BassRevelation1029]

I'm talking about people who, recognising that the hegemon will act to intervene if they enter conflict, are less likely to engage in wars.
And I was talking about groups that will fight regardless of the presence of a hegemon.

As stated, conflict is natural.

We can generalise it. Trade is generally harmed by war.
who's trade?
and usually occur when a state is attempting to exempt itself from hegemonic control.
that doesn't happen when waging war on another nation.

Pretty much every foreign policy decision anybody made was done with Britain in mind somewhere in the process.
this only applied if the threat was directly to Britain.

But if the hegemon has interests in preventing conflict between two parties, then it is liable to restrict any potential conflict.
again you are correct
But during the time where the hegemon's rule goes unchallenged, conflict is less likely.
Conflict against the hegemon, of course.

Conflict among another peoples, which will fight regardless of authority, not so much.

[Smokey D]

And I was talking about groups that will fight regardless of the presence of a hegemon.

As stated, conflict is natural.

Not really. Interest preservation is natural. If conflict can be used to achieve interests, people will fight. If something prevents you from fighting or makes it so that interests cannot be achieved by fighting, you won't fight.

who's trade?

The hegemon's.


that doesn't happen when waging war on another nation.

Wait, yeah it does.

If Mexico suddenly said to the US 'we're not going to trade with you anymore. We're forming a rival trading bloc', it wouldn't be too unexpected for the US to intervene and force Mexico's markets open.


this only applied if the threat was directly to Britain.

Not really. At some point in the policy process, everyone asked the question of whether Britain would intervene. You didn't need to be against Britain per se to affect British interests.


Conflict against the hegemon, of course.

Conflict among another peoples, which will fight regardless of authority, not so much.

Insofar as conflict between two parties not including the hegemon affects the interests of the hegemon, including trade, it is liable to intervene to prevent it. If people resist the authority of the hegemon to make those decisions, and by so doing affect its interests, the hegemon will wage war to enforce its authority and then subsequently prevent any further conflict from occurring. Most of this occurs at the beginning of the period when the proto-hegemon is establishing its power.

[BassRevelation1029]

If something prevents you from fighting or makes it so that interests cannot be achieved by fighting, you won't fight.
Thats assuming that the fight is over interests.

The hegemon's.
not necessarily

If Mexico suddenly said to the US 'we're not going to trade with you anymore. We're forming a rival trading bloc', it wouldn't be too unexpected for the US to intervene and force Mexico's markets open.
Not what I meant at all.

I mean it will not be (at least purposefully) disrupted if Mexico wages a war on cuba.
Not really. At some point in the policy process, everyone asked the question of whether Britain would intervene.
natural/perpetual conflicts rarely give thought to policy.

[Smokey D]

Thats assuming that the fight is over interests.

Everything anyone ever does is done for the sake of perceived (but possibly non-existent) interests.


not necessarily

Not necessarily no, but I didn't say that. There will undoubtedly be some states who if they go to war will affect the interests of the hegemon and as such hegemon will seek to prevent them from doing so. For that reason the number of wars in a hegemonic system are likely to be less.

Not what I meant at all.

I mean it will not be (at least purposefully) disrupted if Mexico wages a war on cuba.

Well Cuba currently isn't able to defend itself from Mexico but it's quite conceivable that war in the Gulf could cause problems for US shipping. Anyway Cuba's not a good example since the US doesn't trade with them in the first place and I've already conceded that the hegemon will be ambivalent to conflict where its interests aren't affected.


natural/perpetual conflicts rarely give thought to policy.

That's not true. France and Germany hated each other for centuries but they both were very careful to court the British. Iran and Iraq hated each other but they both courted support from the US and USSR.

[mph4ever]

wait

my question is if we are suddenly supposed to be saving the lives of the downtrodden why haven't we gone after far worse regimes like north korea or china or just about any horrible place in africa


one or two strategic interventions. its all about the money and the oil contracts. nothing else counts. didn't someone say recently that rumsfeld had decided within a couple of hours of 911 that they were going into iraq. afghanistan was attacked in order to complete the oil pipe line. iraq because they have oil. both perpetuate the idea of a fictitious enemy, they fit the bill since the nazis and the commies are all but gone now.

the north korean bogey man will go away without getting dragged into another vietnam and china is the factory floor of america and the world so they are not about to pi'ss them off too much, not yet anyways

[Smokey D]

I don't know what oil afghanistan has.

[Hababi]

wait

saddam hussein killed roughly a million people during his reign...?

The exact number is unknown but it's estimated in the neighborhood of 800,000 to 1 million. And as I said, his sons would've been even worse.


my question is if we are suddenly supposed to be saving the lives of the downtrodden why haven't we gone after far worse regimes like north korea or china or just about any horrible place in africa

"why don't we save everyone then!"

Well for one thing North Korea has nuclear technology. That makes invading them much more awkward. For another thing, if you remember how many countries were too cowardly to help us take out Saddam, even more would've been unwilling to help take out say Mugabe or Equatorial Guinea's Obiang. France is racist and coddles plenty of the worse African dictators. They helped arm the interahamwe and then tried to interfere in the effort to stop the genocide.

How many hundreds of thousands did we kill by funding the contras and ****ing up Iran and other stuff?

The Contras killed fewer people than the regime they were trying to take down. They were the lesser evil.


you forgot vietnam and afghanistan (the part where we were funding the mujahideen) :lol:

Imagine if we had prevailed in Vietnam. That would've stopped the killing wave that occured when we left, and would've meant that the people today would be living in a state like South Korea, instead of a police state.

And the decision to help the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was the right one at that time. In fact, had we not stopped helping the people of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, things would've been fine.

[mph4ever]

I don't know what oil afghanistan has.

its doesn't have oil. what needed to be done was the completion of the oil pipeline that crosses afghanistan and services the the azerbajian fields delivering their oil to the bay of bengal or pakistan. there was huge disruption to the pipelines development so who better than to complete the work than the american military. the project was one of unocals. union oil company of california became a wholly owned subsidiary of chevron in 2005, wiping the slate clean. chevron used to name its ships in honour if its directors, one being named condi rice but that has since changed to altair voyager. it really wouldn't suit to have a oil tanker named after such a key member of the american government who was trying to convince people that the war in afghanistan was to topple the taliban and that iraq was invaded because of wmds and other rubbish

sooner the better people wake up and see it all for what it is. american corporations want to profiteer, as they are doing now, in the global oil markets, nothing more, nothing less. that is the only attraction, thats why american kids are dying and thats why, no matter who gets voted in, this sh'it is destined to continue

[Smokey D]

Though Vietnam did one of the best interventions of the century and stopped the Khmer Rouge.

[Mister Groovy]

You do know things aren't as bad now, right? Kurdistan is very peaceful, beyond some tensions with Turkey. Several other regions are ok, too. There are a few hotspots. The rest of the country is ok. And things are continuing to improve.

People are dying by the dozens on a daily basis indiscriminately

According to you this about what was going on under Saddam

And even the regions where you don't get killed if you go shopping, still have their infrastructure destroyed, a government that can't take care of any of the basic needs that even Saddam could, etc.

And besides a million goddam people are already dead, plus the maimed, tortured, orphaned, widowed, and so on, all of whom could still be alive and having hope for the future if Bush hadn't decided to liberate them

Well for one thing North Korea has nuclear technology. That makes invading them much more awkward.
Are you saying they have the bomb

For another thing, if you remember how many countries were too cowardly to help us take out Saddam, even more would've been unwilling to help take out say Mugabe or Equatorial Guinea's Obiang. France is racist and coddles plenty of the worse African dictators. They helped arm the interahamwe and then tried to interfere in the effort to stop the genocide.
What about the dictators that we have coddled and coddle still, why aren't we policing them? If we're so good at being world police, how come we can't come up with a better solution to dictators than to either ignore them, talk tough to them but do nothing, ally with them, or replace them with somebody just as bad or worse?

[Smokey D]

It's well established at this point that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons.

[spitfirejunky]

It's well established at this point that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons.

Really?

I'm only aware that they've tried.

[Volumnius Flush]

Luckily their country is small and we could wipe them out in one blast.

[Jude]

Wait I totally thought N.K. didn't have the bomb but they were trying to get it

Wouldn't really matter anyway because nobody's ever going to use a nuke again except to try and deter their enemies

[Smokey D]

You guys need to pay more attention to the news.

"On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. Both the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismological authorities detected an earthquake with a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4.2 on the Richter scale in North Korea, corroborating some aspects of the North Korean claims"


Wouldn't really matter anyway because nobody's ever going to use a nuke again except to try and deter their enemies

Problem being is that NK has lots of enemies, is extremely provocative and it's unclear how stable the regime is and what Pyongyang would do if the regime actually began to break down.

[Iskandar]

I thought everyone knew that NK tested a nuke about a year or so age. Wouldn't that imply that they must, therefore, possess nuclear capability?

[Jude]

I was busy making lamps out of Jews' skins