The war ahead .. and what it could mean

This too shall pass.
AzariLoveIran

The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by AzariLoveIran »

.

Here I want to paint a scenario of what could happen in years to come :


What was the reason America lost Vietnam war ?

reason was that China was Vietnam's northern neighbor, and Russia China's neighbor

War with Vietnam was war with primarily China, and Russia (similar to war with Israel is war with America)

China had unlimited resources, material, manpower, to outlast America

so

America had no real chance in Vietnam

similar situation now developing in Middle East

**

America trying to encircle China

and antagonism with Russia

Iran , bordering in the north to Russia, 1000+ km

so

Russia, Putin, shakes hand with Iran (bold, aggressive Iranian postering hint to this)

and

Iran a vast country with nearly 85 million population, smart, educated, young (80% below 30 yrs old) and pissed off with the west

and

south of Iran, Persian Golf, 1000+ km .. those Amirs and Sheiks and Saudi and and .. all .. can be history quite easily

and

World Oil market would suddenly miss 25+ million barrels a day

and

if push comes to shove .. Caucasus Oil, Azerbaijan Oil, and central Asia, same scenario could happen as in Georgia, Russian Tanks roll over, Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline will be fucked .. Europe would freeze

and

Bahrain, 5th fleet, could be American Dien Bien Phu .. Shallow Persian Golf

if the above happens .. West will lose control of the Middle Eastern, Caucasus, central Asian resources

Iran is the soft belly of Russia and back door of China (civilization and history too)

Iran is key element for American encircling of China (and Russia)

Russia and China will not let it happen

that is why China said attack on Iran mean attack on Russia

An attack on Iran will change the whole world order

listen to Berzinski .. he says military attack on Iran means West pushed out of that space .. and end to Israel


nxeY6bq7lY0



.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

And yet today America is sidling up close to Vietnam and building up a relationship with Vietnam.

Saying America 'lost' Vietnam is silly. The term isn't really even meaningful.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Alexis »

Getting to the core of the matter, domination of Iran looks attractive to America not primarily because of Russia nor China, but because of the Gulf, which concentrates by far the globe's largest reserves of fossil energy. As fossil energy becomes scarcer and scarcer with peak oil reached and beyond, Gulf oil will be in the mid-term even more essential than it is now. Geopolitical and economic stakes in the Gulf are enormous.

Now that America has stupidly destroyed Iraq as a functioning independent State (post-1991 embargo compounded by 2003-11 invasion and occupation), the only strong independent nation indigenous to the Gulf is Iran. Contrary to what hubris made Neocons believe, the outcome of the 1991-2011 US actions in Iraq is Iran as the winner, not America. Instead of a balance of powers between two independent strong nations, a single nation remains, therefore that nation -Iran- is now in a position to dominate the Gulf... thanks to America!

American imperialists would be all too happy to transform the loss in a triumph if only they could dominate Iran. Attacking Iran -militarily or through subversion- is not a realistic option, something that the US leadership has been forced to recognize, no matter what some NeoCons would say. In the absence of a realistic way to quickly attain domination of Iran, America maintains the pressure, pushing for economic isolation of Iran: the hope seems to be that sooner or later something will give, and Iran will become more pliable, possibly following internal political changes.

The challenge for Iranian leadership is to maintain in the long term their legitimacy towards Iranian people, using combinations of economic progress (difficult with sanctions) / internal liberalization (with risks of backfiring) / messianic teachings (do majority of Iranians follow?) / flag-waving against the convenient enemy (may not be sufficient by itself, but is at least riskless). The Iranian leadership is presently in the latter mode, with hope of preventing aggrievation of the first of these levers (economic progress would be hampered by additional sanctions... which is the aim of these sanctions in the first place).

No war will happen if everybody remains rational, which until now they have remained.

Iranian strategy is deterrence, not nuclear deterrence (yet?), but economic deterrence: American leadership won't want to be seen starting a war which would immediately entail global economic recession -if not depression- in case American troops would fail to reopen Hormuz straits in less than a few short weeks -which is militarily difficult. American leadership might be tempted to use false flag attack à la USS Maine (1898), if the year was 2002 and neocon ideology looked good in the eyes of majority of US population... but the year is 2012, and US population is strongly against unnecessary wars: such a trick would not fly.

The situation is therefore pretty stable, with only two following reservations:
- If global economy was to undergo depression... Iranian deterrence would fade at the same time when pressures on US population may make it easier for US leadership to raise a war fever and rally the population behind a conquest openly for naked economic self-interest
- If Iranian leadership was to clearly lose the struggle to maintain its internal legitimacy... it might be tempted going for broke, and attacking Gulf Arab monarchies openly or through subversion, which would trigger war by America (seconded by France and Britain)

We are not anywhere near any of these two hypothetical situations however.

:arrow: Kabuki will continue.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

I wish people would wake up to the reality of the cycle of innovation. Every year, the barrier to entry for a technologically advanced nation to build nuclear weapons decreases. So basically, an Iranian nuke is inevitable. The longer we genuflect with them, the more incentive to use it on us they'll have.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
AzariLoveIran

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Enki wrote:.

And yet today America is sidling up close to Vietnam and building up a relationship with Vietnam.

Saying America 'lost' Vietnam is silly. The term isn't really even meaningful.

.

:lol:

America is sidling up to Vietnam, same as sidling up to Burma

to encircle China

poor Cambodia

Alexis wrote:.

Getting to the core of the matter, domination of Iran looks attractive to America not primarily because of Russia nor China, but because of the Gulf, which concentrates by far the globe's largest reserves of fossil energy. As fossil energy becomes scarcer and scarcer with peak oil reached and beyond, Gulf oil will be in the mid-term even more essential than it is now. Geopolitical and economic stakes in the Gulf are enormous.

Now that America has stupidly destroyed Iraq as a functioning independent State (post-1991 embargo compounded by 2003-11 invasion and occupation), the only strong independent nation indigenous to the Gulf is Iran. Contrary to what hubris made Neocons believe, the outcome of the 1991-2011 US actions in Iraq is Iran as the winner, not America. Instead of a balance of powers between two independent strong nations, a single nation remains, therefore that nation -Iran- is now in a position to dominate the Gulf... thanks to America!

American imperialists would be all too happy to transform the loss in a triumph if only they could dominate Iran. Attacking Iran -militarily or through subversion- is not a realistic option, something that the US leadership has been forced to recognize, no matter what some NeoCons would say. In the absence of a realistic way to quickly attain domination of Iran, America maintains the pressure, pushing for economic isolation of Iran: the hope seems to be that sooner or later something will give, and Iran will become more pliable, possibly following internal political changes.

The challenge for Iranian leadership is to maintain in the long term their legitimacy towards Iranian people, using combinations of economic progress (difficult with sanctions) / internal liberalization (with risks of backfiring) / messianic teachings (do majority of Iranians follow?) / flag-waving against the convenient enemy (may not be sufficient by itself, but is at least riskless). The Iranian leadership is presently in the latter mode, with hope of preventing aggrievation of the first of these levers (economic progress would be hampered by additional sanctions... which is the aim of these sanctions in the first place).

No war will happen if everybody remains rational, which until now they have remained.

Iranian strategy is deterrence, not nuclear deterrence (yet?), but economic deterrence: American leadership won't want to be seen starting a war which would immediately entail global economic recession -if not depression- in case American troops would fail to reopen Hormuz straits in less than a few short weeks -which is militarily difficult. American leadership might be tempted to use false flag attack à la USS Maine (1898), if the year was 2002 and neocon ideology looked good in the eyes of majority of US population... but the year is 2012, and US population is strongly against unnecessary wars: such a trick would not fly.

The situation is therefore pretty stable, with only two following reservations:
- If global economy was to undergo depression... Iranian deterrence would fade at the same time when pressures on US population may make it easier for US leadership to raise a war fever and rally the population behind a conquest openly for naked economic self-interest
- If Iranian leadership was to clearly lose the struggle to maintain its internal legitimacy... it might be tempted going for broke, and attacking Gulf Arab monarchies openly or through subversion, which would trigger war by America (seconded by France and Britain)

We are not anywhere near any of these two hypothetical situations however.

:arrow: Kabuki will continue.

.

if Iran is militarily attacked , Pandora box is opened to unforeseen event .. but .. one thing will be sure .. west will lose control of Middle Eastern Oil and will be pushed out of that space

this could be a trap for west


.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Zack Morris »

Enki wrote:And yet today America is sidling up close to Vietnam and building up a relationship with Vietnam.

Saying America 'lost' Vietnam is silly. The term isn't really even meaningful.
True. Although that's more of a reflection of how utterly incompetent the Chinese are at foreign policy. Their alleged pragmatism and technocratic wizardry don't translate well into the spheres of foreign policy, soft power, and cultural influence. Beijing is incredibly insecure. Did anyone see this yesterday: China’s President Lashes Out at Western Culture?
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by YMix »

Alexis wrote:Getting to the core of the matter, domination of Iran looks attractive to America not primarily because of Russia nor China, but because of the Gulf, which concentrates by far the globe's largest reserves of fossil energy.
It goes a bit farther than the Gulf.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Ibrahim »

Enki wrote:And yet today America is sidling up close to Vietnam and building up a relationship with Vietnam.

Saying America 'lost' Vietnam is silly. The term isn't really even meaningful.
America failed to complete all of their stated objectives in Vietnam, and the regime they battled for so long immediately took over the entire country when the US withdrew. It was clearly a loss.


Where the US genius shows itself is in befriending the Vietnamese government following that defeat, and opening up a fruitful trade relationship. Getting over the past is certainly a healthy thing.

All the people who died in the war, and the Americans who lose manufacturing jobs to outsourcing to Vietnam? Well, in capitalism you have winners and losers.
User avatar
Carbizene
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:41 am

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Carbizene »

Enki wrote:And yet today America is sidling up close to Vietnam and building up a relationship with Vietnam.

Saying America 'lost' Vietnam is silly. The term isn't really even meaningful.
How on Earth can you suggest we didn't lose Vietnam....what bit of these pictures don't you understand?

Image

Image

Image

How is the concept not meaningful? those 60000 people that died trying to achieve victory were just on a really bad package Holiday?
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.
The ability of the enemy to fight was broken?. I don't think so.

It only took the US half a century and a defeat, after great expense in men and material and social - political capital, to figure out that there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

Typhoon wrote:
Enki wrote:Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.
The ability of the enemy to fight was broken?]. Not quite.

It only took the US half a century and a defeat, after great expense in men and material, to figure out that there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

LOL

That comment refers to the sorts of reasons why I think the Cold War was completely unecessary. If we had hung back, let people make their little social experiments and watch them fail only to be there ready to lend a helping hand to pick up the pieces, we'd be in a much better shape than we are today.

I am more and more convinced that ultimately the reason man goes to war, is because he likes it.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
AzariLoveIran

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Enki wrote:.

Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.

.

Notion using Vietnam against China naive .. Vietnam and China will still be next to each other in 1000 yrs, not so US of A .. and Vietnamese no dummy

but

America starting on the right pad


an approach that focuses on a more restrained use of military force, a move that will likely mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps

.

“We’re turning the page on a decade of war,” Obama said in a rare visit to the Pentagon to unveil the strategy. “. . .We’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We’ll continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future.”

A major thrust of the new approach is its insistence on more modest goals for the military, which has spent years fighting difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aimed at ousting brutal, anti-U.S. rulers and rebuilding fractured societies .

The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.

.

and


IMVHO , you folks, you wasting your time in American election thread debating GOP candidates for next presidential election

Obama will be reelected, you can quietly bet the farm on it
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

I think Obama will be re-elected too. But I would like to see Ron Paul nominated so that he can bring that conversation to Obama's face.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Enki wrote:Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.
The ability of the enemy to fight was broken?]. Not quite.

It only took the US half a century and a defeat, after great expense in men and material, to figure out that there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

LOL

That comment refers to the sorts of reasons why I think the Cold War was completely unecessary. If we had hung back, let people make their little social experiments and watch them fail only to be there ready to lend a helping hand to pick up the pieces, we'd be in a much better shape than we are today.
Probably. Running the Vietnam War off-budget was the start of major US public accounting shenanigans.

Two anecdotes. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence was based on the one of the US. By a number of accounts, Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first and a [rice] commie by convenience second as the communist Russians and Chinese were, unlike the US who had sided with the colonial French, willing to support his goals [each for their own purposes and interests].
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Typhoon wrote:.

.. there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

.
Like saying Germany would ally with Iran against Brits and French .. did Brits not Bomb Dresden and Germans not bombed London and killed each other last 2 vicious wars ?

Vietnamese and Japanese in reality Chinese (stock), brothers and sisters

Is America in fanning sectarian wars for western benefits ? Shia against Sunni , Vietnamese against Cambodian and Chinese , Japanese against Chinese ?

will not work

.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
Typhoon wrote:.

.. there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

.
Like saying Germany would ally with Iran against Brits and French .. did Brits not Bomb Dresden and Germans not bombed London and killed each other last 2 vicious wars ?

Vietnamese and Japanese in reality Chinese (stock), brothers and sisters

Is America in fanning sectarian wars for western benefits ? Shia against Sunni , Vietnamese against Cambodian and Chinese , Japanese against Chinese ?

will not work

.
Your notion of who is related to whom is broken considering that human beings almost always fight those that are the most similar but not the same as them. Sunni and Shia fight each other more bitterly than either fights Americans or Chinese. It has ever been thus. France and England have warred over the centuries despite being closely related.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Typhoon »

AzariLoveIran wrote:
Typhoon wrote:.

.. there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

.
Like saying Germany would ally with Iran against Brits and French .. did Brits not Bomb Dresden and Germans not bombed London and killed each other last 2 vicious wars ?

Vietnamese and Japanese in reality Chinese (stock), brothers and sisters

...

.
Sure. <sarc> All look the same. </sarc>
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Enki wrote:Vietnam was ravaged, the ability to fight of the enemy was broken, the domino theory actually worked, and now today, Vietnam is being used to encircle China.
The ability of the enemy to fight was broken?]. Not quite.

It only took the US half a century and a defeat, after great expense in men and material, to figure out that there is historical animosity between the Vietnamese and the Chinese that goes back centuries.

LOL

That comment refers to the sorts of reasons why I think the Cold War was completely unecessary. If we had hung back, let people make their little social experiments and watch them fail only to be there ready to lend a helping hand to pick up the pieces, we'd be in a much better shape than we are today.
I don't agree that the Cold War was unnecessary. Unless one was involutarily involved in one of the many proxy wars, it was certainly preferable to an all out hot war between the superpowers. The US providing an attractive alternative to the soviet and maoist models was invaluable as was containing the soviets.

However, as with all strategies, basic mistakes were made. A notable one was reflexive support to any tin hat tyrant who declared himself to be pro- or anti-commie, and aligned himself with either the SU or US, respectively. Turning a blind eye to such tyrants excesses only served to make the other alternative more attractive.
Enki wrote:I am more and more convinced that ultimately the reason man goes to war, is because he likes it.
Possibly.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

Typhoon wrote:I don't agree that the Cold War was unnecessary. Unless one was involutarily involved in one of the many proxy wars, it was certainly preferable to an all out hot war between the superpowers. The US providing an attractive alternative to the soviet and maoist models was invaluable as was containing the soviets.
My point is I think we could have done that without fighting the proxy wars. Iran would have still purchased American goods under Mossadegh.
However, as with all strategies, basic mistakes were made. A notable one was reflexive support to any tin hat tyrant who declared himself to be pro- or anti-commie, and aligned himself with either the SU or US, respectively. Turning a blind eye to such tyrants excesses only served to make the other alternative more attractive.
I don't think it's a mistake of strategy as it is one of fundamental philosophy. Turning a blind eye to tyrants would not have resulted in any more slaughter than there was with our intervention.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Spoken like a true communist. ;)
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Spoken like a true communist. ;)
I don't know what you mean by communist since you don't use it in a way that is any way reflective of the actual definition. When you put people like me, and mainstream Democrats into the category of 'communist', I just cannot tell what you mean by it.

Please define Communist. As far as I can tell it means, "Anyone that disagrees with Mr. P."
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Mr. Perfect »

A communist is someone who wishes the SU would have succeeded, or a Democrat or most people from the left.

The reason is that while technically some people on the left may not be communist they never did one darn thing to stop them. They are then like the street people from the Matrix, eventual proxies/patsies for the communists when they come calling.

All such people need to be neutralized. Politically.
Censorship isn't necessary
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by Ibrahim »

Typhoon wrote: I don't agree that the Cold War was unnecessary. Unless one was involutarily involved in one of the many proxy wars, it was certainly preferable to an all out hot war between the superpowers. The US providing an attractive alternative to the soviet and maoist models was invaluable as was containing the soviets.

However, as with all strategies, basic mistakes were made. A notable one was reflexive support to any tin hat tyrant who declared himself to be pro- or anti-commie, and aligned himself with either the SU or US, respectively. Turning a blind eye to such tyrants excesses only served to make the other alternative more attractive.
Very well summed up.
AzariLoveIran

Re: The war ahead .. and what it could mean

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Enki wrote:.
Mr. Perfect wrote:.

Spoken like a true communist. ;)

.
I don't know what you mean by communist since you don't use it in a way that is any way reflective of the actual definition. When you put people like me, and mainstream Democrats into the category of 'communist', I just cannot tell what you mean by it.

Please define Communist. As far as I can tell it means, "Anyone that disagrees with Mr. P."

.

Communist , Anti-Semite , Terrorist are cliches used by the Charlatans (neocons) to fool Joe into ruin

Rhubarb , let go of the rubbish, let go


.
Post Reply