Iranian Situation... - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By Rancid
#15020001
Nonsense wrote:Time was when 'third world' nations knew their place in the international pecking order, not now.

A country like 'Great Britain' was(notice the 'Great')once a sea power that used a different type of 'diplomacy' where necessary.

That was 'gunboat' diplomacy, now all it can cook up, is 'bum-boat' diplomacy, I am talking to mainly Americans here, Britain, is\has been on the greasy pole since 1945, today, we can't even get a gunboat to where they should be on duty, even if they could, ship's orders would be to wear 'pink' to to deter any agression,the Royal Navy couldn't fight it's way out of a bird bath.

Look back at the Falklands, militarily speaking, it was a complete & utter 'lash-up' of a disaster.

They couldn't even defend themselves or the assets, so the gutless Margaret THATCHER orders the sinking of the antiquated General BELGRANO, when it was steaming away from the Falklands & was not considered a 'threat' - it wasn't.

Our 'navy' cannot even stop illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in a bathtub, yet, the government orders the wasteful spending of £x10's BILLIONS on two 'white elephant' capital ships, with no aircraft to fly from & which are completely useless for protecting ships at sea anyway.

It's all about 'common sense', with priorities, yet Theresa MAY has cost the U.K more treasure & inflicted more economic damage on the U.K in her short time acting out her fantasy as a P.M than HITLER did between 1939-1945.

When the 'cold war' ended, the government said that it's direction of defense policy would be one of 'rapid response', that's turned out to be complete, utter B$.

The £BILLIONS spent on the two aircraft carriers, should have been spent on procuring fast attack craft, with small powerful torpedoes, light-smart missiles, powerful, rapid fire, high velocity & large calibre surface weapons.

Playing 'diplomatic' games with lying Arab tin pot regimes like the Iranians, is just plain bonkers, force should always be met with force, it's the only language that regimes like Iran understand.
Bring in a couple of destroyers, in order to 'soften' them up, after giving notice to all 'foreigners' to leave Iran immediately of course. :evil:


Long term, as oil becomes less and less important to the global economy. I wonder how this will change the middle-east. There will certainly be less meddling in the middle east, that's for sure.
By Patrickov
#15020005
Rancid wrote:Long term, as oil becomes less and less important to the global economy. I wonder how this will change the middle-east. There will certainly be less meddling in the middle east, that's for sure.


Frankly their tribal in-killing won't cease and they will still be, if not more, of a cesspool like they are now.

And I'd like to assert again: Blaming everything on Western meddling is just a groundless excuse on one's own incompetence.
By B0ycey
#15020007
Nonsense wrote:On the face of it yes, 'tit-for-tat', but, it's not quite like that, irrespective of American involvement in sanctions, which are driving the impetus of Iranian actions, the Grace tanker was subject to arrest on a european warrant, on 'suspicion' of contravening sanctions, that's not true of the U.K registered tanker, which the Iranian military illegally boarded in international waters.


Why would Iran care about international law? It wants its tanker back. It now has leverage. It won't do anything but maintain the vessel because this is tit for tat not a crisis. Unless you call the sudden realisation of Western impotency in Iranian territory a crisis.
#15020010
Rancid wrote:Long term, as oil becomes less and less important to the global economy. I wonder how this will change the middle-east. There will certainly be less meddling in the middle east, that's for sure.


Just one more reason to get off fossil fuels.
#15020014
Rancid wrote:Long term, as oil becomes less and less important to the global economy. I wonder how this will change the middle-east. There will certainly be less meddling in the middle east, that's for sure.


Even assuming it is used less as an energy source, it will certainly still be increasingly wanted as a raw material for plastics and various other organic chemicals like pharmaceuticals.

Most of the fighting in the ME is internal. To the extent that regional powers are wary of getting in the cross hairs of NATO there is probably a lot less fighting than there would be otherwise. Less "meddling" will mean more war not less.

Oil is the ME's no. 1 export by far. If the rest of the world did buy less oil from them then they will have to restructure their economies by a gargantuan amount or standards of living will fall there.

Image
User avatar
By Rancid
#15020035
Patrickov wrote: Blaming everything on Western meddling is just a groundless excuse on one's own incompetence.


No one is blaming everything on western meddling. However, a lot of the blame does go to western meddling.

I suggest you read up on the CIA's work in the 1953 coup, which directly led to the 1979 revolution.


SolarCross wrote:Even assuming it is used less as an energy source, it will certainly still be increasingly wanted as a raw material for plastics and various other organic chemicals like pharmaceuticals.

Most of the fighting in the ME is internal. To the extent that regional powers are wary of getting in the cross hairs of NATO there is probably a lot less fighting than there would be otherwise. Less "meddling" will mean more war not less.

Oil is the ME's no. 1 export by far. If the rest of the world did buy less oil from them then they will have to restructure their economies by a gargantuan amount or standards of living will fall there.


Oil will still be a useful resource, but non-middle eastern nations will not need to rely on OPEC for the resource.

Last, you are aware that the US is the world's largest oil producer, right? OPEC doesn't have such a strong grip on oil prices anymore. Actually, this is one of the triggers (predicted 10-20 years ago) that has caused Venezuela to go into decline.

You see it discussed in the business news media today. Governments and businesses simply aren't as worried about oil anymore since it's not as tightly controlled by OPEC like it was in the past. These days, people are worried about other shit, like corporate debt. It's amazing how much can change in 10 years.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15020053
B0ycey wrote:Why would Iran care about international law? It wants its tanker back. It now has leverage. It won't do anything but maintain the vessel because this is tit for tat not a crisis. Unless you call the sudden realisation of Western impotency in Iranian territory a crisis.


I wouldn't call it a 'crisis' BOycey, it's that decline into insignificance on the world stage.

I agree with you that Iran is indifferent about international law, because, when 'events' happen, is realpolitik, as oppposed to rhetoric.
It does matter though,because, despite Iran's 'justification', it loses in the court of western world opinion.

I blame the U.K for it's incompetence & impotence at all levels.

To myself, seeing the British military response to the Falklands occupation by Argentina, was an embarrassment of the highest order,the royal navy was downright amateurish in the extreme.

To be honest, I struggle to define any significant British military 'victory' in any wartime theatre.

Of course Iran wants it's tanker back, well, to be correct, it wants the oil in the tanker, it's not leverage, because it is subject to legal process first, that's the difference in the situation between both incidents.

Iran wants it's tanker returned because the oil funds the corrupt revolutionary guards spending on arms in Iran & if you cut off their source of money the people of Iran will eventually turn against the regime.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15020061
Rancid wrote:Long term, as oil becomes less and less important to the global economy. I wonder how this will change the middle-east. There will certainly be less meddling in the middle east, that's for sure.


We are slowly changing our thinking about oil, not too soon in my opinion, but America, being the world's petro-currency, will see the detrimental effect of that retreat from oil on it's currency value, it's capacity to service it's debt & the knock-on effects to the world's economy.

The Middle East, being embroiled in wars of it's own making, through it's desire for western arms, which we are happy to sell to them, in order that they can kill each other, will save us from doing the job should it ever be necessary & I think that Israeli's are content for us to continue with that.

There are, even in Saudi, movements to re-balance the economy, to modernise it for the future, a case of turning 'swords into ploughshares' perhaps.
#15020082
Rancid wrote:I suggest you read up on the CIA's work in the 1953 coup, which directly led to the 1979 revolution.


Mossadeq was a USSR asset. Deposing him was justifiable IMHO. The clerics would have had a revolution against a Soviet client state just as much as they would have against a US client state. The 1979 rev could just as easily have been like the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan in an alternate history where Mossadeq remained.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]