If the USA attacks Syria, Syria will attack Jordan & Israel, Iran will attack Saudi Arabia and. ....

McCrann

Premiership Player
Nov 1, 2007
3,694
676
Australia
AFL Club
St Kilda
Petrol will be very expensive. It could also be a great opportunity for North Korea to attack South Korea arms and China to attack Taiwan. Should be a lot easier to do this if the US starts a war in the Middle East and is tied down therefrom.

Thoughts???
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 26, 2005
9,960
1,702
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
I think you have no idea about Nth korea and China. They are not the war mongers.

However war is inevitable. The sun sets closer each day towards mothers flinching everytime a car pulls up out the front and children slamming there hands over there ears everytime they hear an ambulance thinking its the 30 minute warning for approach ICBM's..
 

McCrann

Premiership Player
Nov 1, 2007
3,694
676
Australia
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think you're missing the point I'm making. What better time to strike than when everything goes to **** in the Middle East and everyone with a grudge against the USA can take out their frustrations. Oh yeah, and Russia will tell Europe to butt out or they'll turn off the oil and gas.
 

McCrann

Premiership Player
Nov 1, 2007
3,694
676
Australia
AFL Club
St Kilda
The other thing is; do you know how large scale wars tend to start? Usually countries support their allies and take up arms to help their allies. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend is enough.
 

Atley

Club Legend
Aug 16, 2012
2,756
1,712
Adelaide
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Adelaide Strikers, Redbacks,
Syria wont be attacking anyone if the Yanks decided to drop some freedom on their asses.
 

hardon

Club Legend
Aug 14, 2010
1,301
1,075
AFL Club
Hawthorn
the only thing that will be happening is the US will dish out some precision justice, no innocents will die, the baddies will get theirs, the country will end up with the good guys in charge, the citizens of syria, and probably the rest of the civilised world, will give a collective cheer for the good ol' US of A for straightening things out.

man, i feel like listening to some support-the-troops, wholesome, southern country music right now.
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 26, 2005
9,960
1,702
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
The other thing is; do you know how large scale wars tend to start?
I got a much more realistic opinion of how ww2 started, than what you'll find in a western history book.

It had to do with the control of resources that came to a head before ww1.

I know that in all probabilities Afghanistan had alot to do with restraining the Chinese economy by effecting its ability to source affordable energy.

We should not be going to war because one country managed its finances , its civilization better than another, and that another to remain viable had to attack.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,123
30,917
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
China and North Korea aren't going to do ****.

It's not in China's best interest at this stage. China is controlled by very rational people.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blue and Silver

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
10,557
9,508
Brunswick
AFL Club
Carlton
Such a nuanced understanding of global politics.

US resources involved in any attacks on the Assad regime are largely negligible to their deterrence efforts to China and NK.

Not to mention NK doesn't want a war and China would be daft to attack Taiwan (the repercussions in their economy would completely stunt their growth and quite possibly breed discontent).

These countries are not "anti-US". They just view some of their interests as contrary and stand against them. Things don't exist in a point scoring context.
 

Bollox

Show Pony
Jun 29, 2006
15,043
8,024
Nthn Beaches
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
BBGFC and LRGC
I agree that its time we annex New Zealand yes...but i think a very motley crew of assorted Tongans and Samoans would then row their sorry arse canoes over and invade us...then the US would invade all of Polynesia which would force Indonesia to....hmmmm
I dont really want to start stockpiling cans of spam...so please stop frightening me with these amateur domino thoeries. Though i do think the NZ idea has merit.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Such a nuanced understanding of global politics.

US resources involved in any attacks on the Assad regime are largely negligible to their deterrence efforts to China and NK.

Not to mention NK doesn't want a war and China would be daft to attack Taiwan (the repercussions in their economy would completely stunt their growth and quite possibly breed discontent).

These countries are not "anti-US". They just view some of their interests as contrary and stand against them. Things don't exist in a point scoring context.
its not about Syria dude.

Its all about Iran. Assad was great when he tortured for us. Not good when they wished to move onto their next state until the big prize of Iran. Russia is about having a friendly port in the Mediterranean. China wants Iran to stay Iran and not be vassal state of US. Everyone who has a perfunctory awareness of he geopolitik dynamic in the ME knows this. So, that would mean, about a dozen people in Canberra. Perhaps a dozen journalists at the Oz and Fairfax. McGeough and ten more. For this, we get a deserve another war. Ok, perhaps another twenty when you add in ANU and Canberra uni.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
62,392
51,056
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I agree that its time we annex New Zealand yes...but i think a very motley crew of assorted Tongans and Samoans would then row their sorry arse canoes over and invade us...then the US would invade all of Polynesia which would force Indonesia to....hmmmm
I dont really want to start stockpiling cans of spam...so please stop frightening me with these amateur domino thoeries. Though i do think the NZ idea has merit.
we will finally be able to field a decent rugby side
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 27, 2004
29,929
13,595
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
so the moral of the story is that we need to stop using petrol so we can stop caring about what goes on in the middle east?
 

Blue and Silver

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
10,557
9,508
Brunswick
AFL Club
Carlton
its not about Syria dude.

Its all about Iran. Assad was great when he tortured for us. Not good when they wished to move onto their next state until the big prize of Iran. Russia is about having a friendly port in the Mediterranean. China wants Iran to stay Iran and not be vassal state of US. Everyone who has a perfunctory awares of he geopolitik dynamic in the ME knows this. So, that would mean, about a dozen people in Canberra. Perhaps a dozen journalists at the Oz and Fairfax. McGeough and ten more. For this, we get a deserve another war. Ok, perhaps another twenty when you add in ANU and Canberra uni.
UGH

That's a conclusion that can be drawn, yes. It is not solid hard fact.

Iran is a concern to the United States for several reasons:

1) It's strong anti-US stance stemming from the CIA involvement in the instatement of the Shah. Consequentially Iran is prone to playing the "spoiler" in the Middle East, trying to force out US assets.

2) It attempts at gaining nuclear technology. Essentially this boils down to the fact the US would rather have as few states with the bomb as possible.

Iran is involved in Syria, that is undeniable, but the reasoning is most likely religious, not purely geo-political . Iran's clerical leaders follow Shia, from which the Assad families Alawite religion stems from. In Syria the majority of people are Arab Sunni's, including much of the rebel leadership, ergo it is against the religious inclination of Iran to lose a strong state with a sympathetic religious leader. Most of the internal politics in the Middle East can be broken down to some sort of conflict between Sunni and Shia, or even between Coptic Christians and Muslims.

So is US intervention in Syria about hitting out at Iran? No.

Iran's in the process of getting itself nice and mired in someone else's business. The Syrian civil war has no real end in sight for a very long time, and even if one side "wins" it is likely that the scars of this conflict will perpetuate onto future decisions. This has all the possibility of either inflicting significant losses on elite Iranian troops, or affixing them to a country which is physically isolated from Iran.

In short it is in US interests for Iran to get caught up in this conflict, and subsequently for the conflict to drag on.

So why the involvement? Prestige

Obama said not use chemical weapons, they did, it essentially comes down to if the US don't act then other upstart dictators will be a lot more confident in starting spotfires which will cause the US all sorts of grief. By appearing near omniscient and omnipotent, the US can enforce political pressure to dissuade all sorts of behavior. But if it doesn't rock up and deliver a good whack to Syria, especially given its failures in the Middle East previously then there is a lot of damage.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
UGH

That's a conclusion that can be drawn, yes. It is not solid hard fact.

Iran is a concern to the United States for several reasons:

1) It's strong anti-US stance stemming from the CIA involvement in the instatement of the Shah. Consequentially Iran is prone to playing the "spoiler" in the Middle East, trying to force out US assets.

2) It attempts at gaining nuclear technology. Essentially this boils down to the fact the US would rather have as few states with the bomb as possible.

have not read completely, but need to reply.

Ahmadinejad attempts rapprochement 2002, early, Jan or so. says we have Al Qaeda operatives fleeing Afghanistan caught at border, can we hand them over. US did not want to know.

for 2) I take it you dont read Nima Shirazi's Wide Asleep in America or the Leverett's blogs
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/
http://www.raceforiran.com/

first 2 points as FAIL. will get on to the others. but dont have much confidence
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
yeah, basically, confirmed my thoughts of what the rest of the post would be. bloviating crap

if it was about chemical weapons and/or deterrence, i) they would not have used them in Fallujah, and ii) the Pentagon would have had to be free of influence from Perle and Feith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

So why the involvement? Prestige

Obama said not use chemical weapons, they did, it essentially comes down to if the US don't act then other upstart dictators will be a lot more confident in starting spotfires which will cause the US all sorts of grief. By appearing near omniscient and omnipotent, the US can enforce political pressure to dissuade all sorts of behavior. But if it doesn't rock up and deliver a good whack to Syria, especially given its failures in the Middle East previously then there is a lot of damage.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
so the moral of the story is that we need to stop using petrol so we can stop caring about what goes on in the middle east?

no.

principle is

stop caring about what goes on in the ME.


*asterisk represents fomenting coup, internicine war, PLUS the R2P doctrine. And goes for the Sinos and Ruskies just as well as the West
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap

Blue and Silver

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
10,557
9,508
Brunswick
AFL Club
Carlton
Ok then.

I never said it was about chemical weapons. I said it was about prestige. It is important to the US to look formidable.

But you aren't listening so go on your merry way
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Ok then.

I never said it was about chemical weapons. I said it was about prestige. It is important to the US to look formidable.

But you aren't listening so go on your merry way
this is not about 54 or the Shah or the Revolution.

and this is not about the nuclear bomb. this has been a talking point since 1980, yet we have had more nations which are technologically less advanced get nuclear bombs. see the blogs of i offered you.

this is not about the red-line and deterrence. the red-line was so defined, on a simple false-flag premise, that it would justify.underwrite the marines or navy or airforce, with a R2P remit. but ofcourse, you can interpret everything thru a Lateline or SBS worldnews lens.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Dec 29, 2003
25,413
12,297
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
So are you a truther?

I dont think Flynt and Hillary-Anne nor Nima are "truthers". I just was on the thread then, because it was the final post in Question Time. Cannot remember who posted it, may have been someone i follow (respect) for his/her posts.

You could answer that smear, by going to that thread, or the Question Time forum, and doing a search of posts, specifically for member "blackcat".

I dont think i will dignify your questions though, with profound ignorance on Syria and Iran.

oh, and the Leveretts are almumni of State Dep't. I could have given you links to TRita Parsi of George Washington Uni. or Juan Cole from Michigan U. but guess that does not fit your response then does it
 
Top Bottom