Pages: 1

 

2007-03-03 18:51:39
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6983
Wow!

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran (not so friendly with Bush & Co.) and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (bum-buddies with Bush & Co.) have met, had a little chat and decided that they need to band together to battle sectarian strife within the middle east. Major diplomatic/political development. A proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. What will this mean for the US-Saudi relationship? Why did the Sauds 'disobey' Washington (I would imagine)? Why has Ahmedinejad, accused of seeking hegemony over all of the middle east, come to a common agreement with traditionally non-aligned and US-friendly Saudi Arabia? So many questions! It seems the balance of power is drifting further from the US than anyone first imagined.

Here's an excerpt from the BBC report -

Speaking in Tehran after the talks, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "We discussed the Palestinian and Iraq issues comprehensively. We have common views in this regard."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6415605.stm

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-03 18:52:16)

2007-03-03 18:54:04
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command
So does this mean less headless bodies, suicide bombings and related nonsense?
Good.
I'm all for it.
2007-03-03 18:58:29
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land
yeah, but it could also mean that the entire middle east is going to unite, which would result in the serious screwination of us


i don't like negotiations between the Saudi's and iran specifically because if they decide to become friendly we don't have two different opposing sides in the middle east, but as i said before one united side.
2007-03-03 19:13:42
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6749|South Carolina, US
Lol, looks like the beginnings of the Middle East Coalition are forming...
2007-03-03 19:26:14
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6957|Global Command
And people mocked me for using the term MEC to describe such an event.
2007-03-03 19:38:39
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7103|Canberra, AUS
Get your AK101s.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-03-03 19:59:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Interesting considering the Saudi's have been absolutely punishing Iran in the Oil market. If the Saudi's really wanted to be buds with Iran they would agree to cut oil production. Does this also mean Iran will stop Hezbollah from disrupting the pro Saudi government is Lebanon?

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-03 19:59:47)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-03 21:31:54
JahManRed
wank
+646|7056|IRELAND

It might make my kids future unstable, but I think the ME states should aline and stop this "we know whats best for yous " bullshit let them as a group make their own destiny, after all they have the oil which is going to shape the global resource grab that we are going to see in the next decades.
If it challenges the USA's totalitarian control of global economics and new world order, I'm for it with some reservations. If faced with a new world order based on profit, margins and percentages at any human cost versus religious abstinence, even tho I'm an atheist, I would go with Religion every time, looking at both track records.
2007-03-03 21:35:03
san4
The Mas
+311|7116|NYC, a place to live
Saudi Arabia is scared to death of Iran. Do they really have any common goals? This is bizarre. It is making my brain hurt.
2007-03-03 21:37:51
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land
Saudi Arabia has the USA to back them, whereas Iran has china/UN
2007-03-03 21:45:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Blehm98 wrote:

Saudi Arabia has the USA to back them, whereas Iran has china/UN
Saudi Arabia does not need the US. They can send Iran into an economic crisis when ever they choose.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-03 21:50:17
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land
Yes, but if iran starts waving nukes around saudi arabia will have to think twice about doing so.  Which is when they ask the US to help them out because they don't want to deal with suffering from any damage at all
2007-03-04 04:34:11
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7103|Belgium

President Ahmadinejad wrote:

"Iran and Saudi Arabia oppose the dominance of enemies over the region and their conspiracies. During this trip, we tried to devise some measures to prevent the enemies from harming the Muslim world and to foil their plots"
Interesting! I suppose there will always remain differences between the two countries, but if they do accomplish a relative ceasefire in Iraq and Palestine there could be a serious change in politics the next years or so.
2007-03-04 06:25:43
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6749|South Carolina, US

JahManRed wrote:

It might make my kids future unstable, but I think the ME states should aline and stop this "we know whats best for yous " bullshit let them as a group make their own destiny, after all they have the oil which is going to shape the global resource grab that we are going to see in the next decades.
If it challenges the USA's totalitarian control of global economics and new world order, I'm for it with some reservations. If faced with a new world order based on profit, margins and percentages at any human cost versus religious abstinence, even tho I'm an atheist, I would go with Religion every time, looking at both track records.
You would rather live under a Sharia system with an undemocratic government and absolutely no respect for human rights(where'd you'd have to convert or die, basically) than under a constitutional republic that, while not perfect, at least allows people to speak their minds and live with some freedom? Can we please classify Bushophobia as a dangerous mental disease that will drive poor liberals to the ultimate extreme just to show their friends how much they hate Bush?
2007-03-04 14:56:35
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

Blehm98 wrote:

Yes, but if iran starts waving nukes around saudi arabia will have to think twice about doing so.  Which is when they ask the US to help them out because they don't want to deal with suffering from any damage at all
Iran don't have any nukes to wave around. they might in about a decade - but that's quite a way off yet.
2007-03-04 15:00:20
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land
unfortunately, that may not be the case

we have no way of knowing how close they are to getting nukes, and its possible the north korea would give iran a nuke or two just to cause trouble.  This is the main problem with North korea getting nukes is, they can put them up on the black market to terrorist organizations who can then do whatever
2007-03-04 15:02:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Blehm98 wrote:

unfortunately, that may not be the case

we have no way of knowing how close they are to getting nukes, and its possible the north korea would give iran a nuke or two just to cause trouble.  This is the main problem with North korea getting nukes is, they can put them up on the black market to terrorist organizations who can then do whatever
You do realize NK is disarming now? US/China pressure and diplomacy has convinced them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-04 15:05:45
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land
i'm sorry but i seriously don't believe that is true


they may claim they are disarming, and my go through the motions, but they aren't planning on a permanant disarming.  Possibly temporary though
2007-03-04 15:08:17
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7029|132 and Bush

Blehm98 wrote:

i'm sorry but i seriously don't believe that is true


they may claim they are disarming, and my go through the motions, but they aren't planning on a permanant disarming.  Possibly temporary though
I think as part of the agreement the must allow IAEA inspectors to continuously come in and monitor.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-04 15:10:32
Fen321
Member
+54|6926|Singularity

UGADawgs wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

It might make my kids future unstable, but I think the ME states should aline and stop this "we know whats best for yous " bullshit let them as a group make their own destiny, after all they have the oil which is going to shape the global resource grab that we are going to see in the next decades.
If it challenges the USA's totalitarian control of global economics and new world order, I'm for it with some reservations. If faced with a new world order based on profit, margins and percentages at any human cost versus religious abstinence, even tho I'm an atheist, I would go with Religion every time, looking at both track records.
You would rather live under a Sharia system with an undemocratic government and absolutely no respect for human rights(where'd you'd have to convert or die, basically) than under a constitutional republic that, while not perfect, at least allows people to speak their minds and live with some freedom? Can we please classify Bushophobia as a dangerous mental disease that will drive poor liberals to the ultimate extreme just to show their friends how much they hate Bush?
"You would rather live under Sharia system" -- Okay do you want to see how funny your "argument" is. The term Sharia can be used to describe ANY legal system with regards to LAWS, meaning we live in AMERICAN Sharia legal system. So, granted its really funny how you may know so little of what the term actually means, but yet find comfort in throwing it around as a negative thing.

Better yet, how is it that two parties in the Middle East having talks on how to stabilize conflicts within their region equates to this crazy hypothetical of yours?
2007-03-04 15:30:22
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6749|South Carolina, US

Fen321 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

It might make my kids future unstable, but I think the ME states should aline and stop this "we know whats best for yous " bullshit let them as a group make their own destiny, after all they have the oil which is going to shape the global resource grab that we are going to see in the next decades.
If it challenges the USA's totalitarian control of global economics and new world order, I'm for it with some reservations. If faced with a new world order based on profit, margins and percentages at any human cost versus religious abstinence, even tho I'm an atheist, I would go with Religion every time, looking at both track records.
You would rather live under a Sharia system with an undemocratic government and absolutely no respect for human rights(where'd you'd have to convert or die, basically) than under a constitutional republic that, while not perfect, at least allows people to speak their minds and live with some freedom? Can we please classify Bushophobia as a dangerous mental disease that will drive poor liberals to the ultimate extreme just to show their friends how much they hate Bush?
"You would rather live under Sharia system" -- Okay do you want to see how funny your "argument" is. The term Sharia can be used to describe ANY legal system with regards to LAWS, meaning we live in AMERICAN Sharia legal system. So, granted its really funny how you may know so little of what the term actually means, but yet find comfort in throwing it around as a negative thing.

Better yet, how is it that two parties in the Middle East having talks on how to stabilize conflicts within their region equates to this crazy hypothetical of yours?
"Sharia" might mean law or something like that in Arabic, but it's almost always used to refer to Islamic law, i.e., the stuff that the Taliban and Saudi Arabia adhere to.

I'm not the one who presented that situation: he said himself that : "If faced with a new world order based on profit, margins and percentages at any human cost versus religious abstinence, even tho [sic] I'm an atheist, I would go with Religion every time, looking at both track records." He's the one who said that he'd be fine with Islamic dominance over American dominance. At least, that's what it sounds like, since I'm not entirely sure what he means by "religious abstinence."
2007-03-04 15:35:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

Blehm98 wrote:

unfortunately, that may not be the case

we have no way of knowing how close they are to getting nukes, and its possible the north korea would give iran a nuke or two just to cause trouble.  This is the main problem with North korea getting nukes is, they can put them up on the black market to terrorist organizations who can then do whatever
Yeah we do. There has been a sustained IAEA presence in Iran since their nuclear program began. Only relatively recently have there been problems with IAEA access, which is more to do with US/Iranian animosity than anything else (for example refusing to let inspectors from the US in).

We know the size and approximate level of development of all Irans centrifuges and it is not too difficult to use that information to work out how much fissile material they can refine in a set period of time. Reliable estimates place this somewhere in the timeframe of at least 5 and possibly as much as 10 years to have enough fissile material to make a bomb.

The Iran nuke situation is far from being an immediate concern. It is something to keep an eye on certainly, but no great worry right now.
2007-03-04 15:40:15
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6891|meh-land

Kmarion wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

i'm sorry but i seriously don't believe that is true


they may claim they are disarming, and my go through the motions, but they aren't planning on a permanant disarming.  Possibly temporary though
I think as part of the agreement the must allow IAEA inspectors to continuously come in and monitor.
mmm...  i still don't trust north korea but i guess you guys have me beat

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard