GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6614

rdx-fx wrote:

F*** it.  We know the drill.  Hang up that old sign in front of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska again.  Y'know, the one that read "Number of Soviet Intercepts this year: ###"  ..sort of like a "number of accident free days on this job site: ###" sign - but uh.. different.

The real question is to see how the EU, Japan, and the former Soviet states handle the New Russian Bear without nearly as much US support as before. 

I know the EU military is capable - but are their politicians Chamberlains or Churchills?
I hear Gordon Brown is a bit of a hawk.  The new french president doesnt act very french either.
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6357

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

F*** it.  We know the drill.  Hang up that old sign in front of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska again.  Y'know, the one that read "Number of Soviet Intercepts this year: ###"  ..sort of like a "number of accident free days on this job site: ###" sign - but uh.. different.

The real question is to see how the EU, Japan, and the former Soviet states handle the New Russian Bear without nearly as much US support as before. 

I know the EU military is capable - but are their politicians Chamberlains or Churchills?
I hear Gordon Brown is a bit of a hawk.  The new french president doesnt act very french either.
Yeah I actually like that guy. First Frenchmen I havent had a large disagreement with since my grandfather...
Sa¢ripan
Member
+12|6710|St-Dié/ Lorraine/ France
i vote free ze vodka GO RUSSIA blow them away arr arr
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5970|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Take a look at a quote from Condoleeza Rice - "Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."

The power shift is there - we (Coalition of the willing) eliminated the one Armed Forces group that could protect the area from Iran's Armed Forces.  As far as the degree of the shift, it really doesn't matter.  The fact is that there is no one local Armed Forces in the region that could contend with Iran.  No one, not even Israel.  Any Military engagement would need the support of an outside force (probably the US, but perhaps EU assistance as well).  Nuclear capabilities are almost always pursued for perceived power on the world stage, especially for a State that isn't considered one, e.g. Pakistan, North Korea or Iran.  If the primary concern were simply that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear armament capability, there would be no need for the rallying of Sunni Arab states, there would be no need for billion dollar arms sales to the autocratic regimes in the area.  The fact that they (Iran) express a willingness to pursue nuclear weapons is icing on the cake.  The U.S. is concerned with Iranian regional influence, and using an idea of pursuit of nuclear weapons to promote their (US/ally) agenda.  The EU nations are concerned with the nuclear capabilities - and that's about it.  EU really doesn't care about the balance of power in the region - why would they?  It isn't their (EU) playground, it's ours.
Ack, I got a karma and saw that I hadn't replied to your further remarks, pardon - I'll do now .

Allright, I agree with the fact that almost noone could stand up to the Iranian military in the region. Though wether they could take out Israel on their own? I don't know, actually don't think so. Israel's military is probably more proffesional and advanced than the Iranian one is at this moment.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

There is some truth to the above paragraph, and a lot of simplifying.  Read up on the history of Iran for the last 50 years, and the actions the U.S. has historically taken in promoting pro-U.S. agenda leaders in regions all over the world to better understand the relationship between the U.S. and Iran in regards to the Middle East region.
Well, I simplified it because I actually didn't want to write out the whole, that would take so much time, guess you could imagine it . I think I know the history good enough to determine that the revolution from kingdom to Islamic rule was the base for tensions inbetween Iran and the US.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The allocation of billions of dollars in military aid to Sunni Arab States isn't only meant to weaken the bonds between them (those states) and Iran, or for that matter, Russia.  It is specifically meant for defense - to bulk up the Military defense of those countries to better defend against any type of Iranian aggression.  I guess there really can be a Cold War analogy made, because the threat is hypothetical but real at the same time.  It is to balance the perceived (and real) power of Iran has in the region.  There is also the idea that Sunni Arab States and Israel will form a common bond (weaken Iran) and that will lead to regional cooperation for a two-state solution, as I said before.
Maybe I should've been more specific and clear, because I intended to say that the help was also ment for a balance of power. But a common bond inbetween Israel and other nations in the Middle East seems unlikely to me. Just about everyone there hates them, though it would be a possibility - but I guess only used if there were to be no other option for the Sunni Arab States.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ahmadinejad is full of it (rhetoric); so is Bush.  So are numerous leaders.  In the world of real foreign policy, rhetoric is worthless.  Stated intentions and actual intentions are not always the same.  We must look at actual implementations and dialogue between the factions to understand the reasoning behind the relationships.  As far as nuclear weapons, the IAEA, UN, US and EU are pursuing diplomatic resolutions, with Iran agreeing to a timetable for inspection.  The rhetoric from Bush and Co. may be in regards to nuclear production, but the actions are to affect the balance of power in the region.
Rhetoric, yes. But far more extreme than Bush or anyone else for the matter. He manages to make himself sound like a raving lunatic from time to time, which is bad.

I'll go look into regional relations inbetween Iran and the surrounding states then, cheers for clearing a few things up. Although, still the nuclear abuse is extremely serious in my eyes - and leads me to the conclusion that they cannot be trusted at all.
inane little opines

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard