Moderator's Warning: |
Friendly reminder to everyone to discuss the topic only please and leave the personal comments directed at other members aside. Thanks. |
I love pie. Do we really need to discuss irrelevant material on this thread?
Meanwhile, the Nobel Committee can award Romney or Obama another Peace Prize.
Threads are threads.... if you are not going to fight this war.... better sit, watch TV and eat pop corn like others do.
How would China launch a 'proxy' war against the US in the region, which really means launching a proxy war against our Gulf allies, whom are their largest energy partners (they have been divesting their Iranian import contracts btw), and with what resources and what 'proxies'? Furthermore that is not how the treasury debt situation works. 'Calling in' the treasury debt is not only not really possible, it would be catastrophic to China which trades in foreign currency reserves, and for a multitude of other reasons.
China wouldn't have to call in the debt. it could simply stop buying new debt. as our creditor, China does hold sway, and i disagree that it would be hurt as much as we would by debt manipulation. it can and does manipulate its own currency, which also could have a big effect on our now delicate economy. not to mention, China makes pretty much all of our electronics now. secondly, China and Russia have the ability to arm the Iranians and anyone else who wants to get on board to the hilt. this would erase any hope of stability in the region, and it also would decrease the safety of Israel.
once again, there aren't any good options. i think that the least bad options are diplomatic and economic until Iran demonstrates that aggression is inevitable.
If China stopped purchasing debt it would have the same effect. China has a vested interested in purchasing US treasuries, both to buttress its supply of foreign currency reserves, and to maintain US import demand and capability on which Chinese growth rests. It is why the CIC moved to shore up US banks during the financial crisis, and why China did not suspend its purchase of US treasuries. To think that a strike on Iran would force them to put an economic gun to their head, when a world wide economic crises wouldn't, is absurd.
You have also still failed to explain why they would take the fantastically risky position of equipping Iran with advanced weaponry when they have to date refused to do so, and secondly how they would facilitate the deployment of such systems in a timeline that actually effects an existing campaign. Furthermore you have not addressed China's unwillingness to aggravate its greatest regional energy partners. Why China would intervene to protect a doomed Iran at the cost of losing all of its investments both political and economic with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, etc is beyond me and does not match up with reality.
A Sino-Russian savior intervention in Iran is fantasy.
we're both simply playing the prediction game. my argument is that Russia and China will protect their business interests in Iran with varying degrees of covertness. is your argument that if Israel launches preemptive strikes (nuclear or conventional), China and Russia will pick up stakes, move on, and not respond? what, if any, reaction do you expect from Russia and China following a preemptive attack on Iran?
No, you are making claims and predictions far outside the realm of what any analyst at any legitimate institution whether government, non-profit, or private is saying. As for what I'm saying of course they will not respond militarily, it is ludicrous, mark that, ludicrous to believe China would stick its neck out for Iran when they have already started to assist the Saudi's in facilitating defacto sanctions on the country by divesting their Iranian import portfolio. Russia has no reason or means to sincerely intervene, and the decision to arm Iran would led to a catastrophic surge of activity on its periphery (the end of the defacto arms embargo on Georgia, the extension of the Manas Airforce Base lease, the deployment of missile assets to Eastern Europe, the arming of Azerbaijan, etc) for ZERO gain.
Also what business interests? Russia already lost out on a nearly $13 billion contract with Iran because it refused to supply them with S-300 missile batteries, planes, warships, armored vehicles, etc. They have instituted a defacto arms embargo on the country. While China hasn't sold them significant military equipment in some time and has much more important regional trading partners.
Sure, and if we are removing moral equivalency from the argument then its fair to say that an Iranian nuclear weapon is inimical to US interests and we should prevent it from coming to pass. Having an Iranian bomb is not a positive thing for the region, or for the US. Nor is it positive for the world as far as the expansion and potential pressures of proliferation.
a little more on this issue : Waiting for Russia's Next Move on Iran - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
so, to be clear, you believe that China and Russia will allow a preemptive attack on Iran, and will not respond?
i would disagree. they are already responding.
Russia: New US sanctions on Iran 'overt ... JPost - International
China slams new US-Iran sanctions as 'serious violation of intl rules' — RT
exactly how they will respond is certainly up for debate. whether they will respond is decidedly less so.
There it is! We are different and get to decide what is good for the world. Nukes in general are bad for the world but to classify us as having some kind of moral authority is an amazing statement. Read about the history of the Iran since world war 2 and maybe you'll get an idea about our moral authority. Here's a hint they don't dislike us because we have titty bars. The people of Iran are actual people they are not objects that you get to have dominion over.
We do get to decide what is good for the world as the major Democratic power and leader of a coalition of democratic powers. I don't care what the Iranian government wants or thinks is fair. Their acquisition of a nuclear weapon is harmful and cannot be allowed.
I appreciate your honesty. While I couldn't disagree more with your ideas at least you're not wrapping it in all the bs about good intentions.
Can everyone stop using the "Invade Iran" line! No one is suggesting Israel will invade Iran, or that Iran will invade Israel! I also have to strongly disagree with you speckle.
What does U.S. elections have to do with israel?
What did I say that you disagree with?
I feel like you just said exactly what I said so where is the point of disagreement?
Your report acknowledges that Russia has lost billions on willingly canceled military contracts, and secondly NO WHERE does it mention that Russia or China would respond militarily. Which is entirely the point, because no one is saying they would. No one. Their reaction would be diplomatic and peripheral not militant or economic.
Sure, and if we are removing moral equivalency from the argument then its fair to say that an Iranian nuclear weapon is inimical to US interests and we should prevent it from coming to pass. Having an Iranian bomb is not a positive thing for the region, or for the US. Nor is it positive for the world as far as the expansion and potential pressures of proliferation.
Apologies. What I meant was that this is about a coordinated air campaign, and Iranian methods of retaliation, but these threads have been replete with references to invasion, which is what I was referring to. My disagreement is that this is part of some desire to drive up arms procurement rates. I think that is unfounded and mildly conspiratorial.
We did this to ourselves by making it clear that the only way to keep Americas dick out of your butt is to have a nuke.
It is conspiratorial. You don't believe that our politicians are in a conspiracy to drive up weapons sales? What are those campaign contributions and lobbyists for then?