IRAN/RUSSIA/CHINA and the Coming World War

A common enemy ?
Both are our enemy.

 

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; no more, no less.

Having a common enemy doesn't make us allies, even for a minute.

 

That depends on what the other guy contributes that "we" need; currently Israel is a good contributor. They spy on us, we spy on them. Their sources in the ME are better than ours.
As compared to radical Islam's record, Israel is a saint. However, they have their own national agenda and we have ours. Right now they share a common goal with us. If and when that changes is another story.
In the mean time Israel isn't an enemy and a radical Islam is a serious threat. If and when Israel becomes a threat, I'll advocate killing them into extinction or submission whichever they prefer same as any other threat.

Darklight,
Last guys who attacked everyone were the Nazis and the Japs. War makes strange bedfellows at least until the war is over.

 

Tikka-
I wasn't saying there can be no allies or innocent bystanders, simply that the enemy of my enemy is not, by default my ally.

Many times common goals don't translate into partnerships simply because "I'm not comfortable with your methods".

 

Comfortable with methods or satisfied with the results?

When the enemy has killed thousands more of our own than died on 09.11; anyone who kills them gets an atta boy.

 

Tikka-
Ok, let me rephrase: the enemy of my enemy isn't my ally by default. And no, just because they kill thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of the "other guy" (read: common enemy) doesn't mean they get an immediate atta boy in my book.

There has to be a line in the sand or snow or grass or whatever. A line that we won't cross and don't want to be associated with. Call it morals, call it a weak stomach, call it whatever you like but if our titular 'allies' resort to genocide then I say we call off support for them. If they start using chemical warfare on entire villages or say on another front then we have to sever ties.

Now I'm not saying that Israel is or even would do that, not in the slightest. My point is that while war may very well make strange bedfellows, there is a deference between a useful enemy of my enemy and a true ally.

Mongooses are great at keeping the cobra population at bay but they make horrible pets because they don't "tame" real well and they will still bite YOU That made more sense in my head but I think you see where I'm going (plus I typed it on my iPhone so I'm not going to delete it...it took too long to type).

 

Getting from a common interest in killing bad guys to genocide was rather a big step.

The difference is semantics. True ally is an interesting name for a very short list of nations. As each nation ought to put their own national interests first; the list of true allies grows even shorter.

As you said a mongoose isn't a pet. Unfortunately, the only time a mongoose is a pet is when people are kidding themselves.

 

Anyone who purposely attacks me is not an ally, they are at best a lesser enemy.

We may have a common greater enemy but I will never forget that they still an enemy.

I may work with them against my greater enemy, but there will be an accounting.

 

Actually it was a gigantic leap. There was an entire yard full of trains of thought, not just one, that lead from one to the other. I tried not to go from a to pi directly but if I did I apologize.

 

US Presents Israel With Iran Strike Plan

Jul 30, 2012
Associated Press| by Amy Teibel
JERUSALEM -- An Israeli newspaper reported Sunday that the Obama administration's top security official has briefed Israel on U.S. plans for a possible attack on Iran, seeking to reassure it that Washington is prepared to act militarily should diplomacy and sanctions fail to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential talks, said the article in the Haaretz daily was incorrect.

Haaretz said National Security Adviser Tom Donilon laid out the plans before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a dinner at a visit to Israel earlier this month. It cited an unidentified senior American official as the source of its report, which came out as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was telling Israel he would back an Israeli military strike against Iran.

The American official also said Donilon shared information on U.S. weapons that could be used for such an attack, and on the U.S. military's ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities buried deep underground, the newspaper said. It cited another U.S. official involved in the talks with Israel as concluding that "the time for a military operation against Iran has not yet come."

The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential meeting, said, "Nothing in the article is correct. Donilon did not meet the prime minister for dinner, he did not meet him one-on-one, nor did he present operational plans to attack Iran." He had no information when asked if Donilon had discussed any kind of attack plans with any Israeli official. Haaretz said another Israeli official attended for part of the meeting.

The U.S. Embassy had no immediate comment. Haaretz cited Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, as declining to comment on the confidential discussion between Netanyahu and Donilon. The White House also declined comment.

Both Israel and the U.S. think Iran's ultimate aim is to develop weapons technology, and not just produce energy and medical isotopes as Tehran claims. U.S. officials are concerned that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear facilities prematurely, and have been trying to convince Israeli leaders they can depend on Washington to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly said they would not contract out their country's security to another nation.

In Jerusalem on Sunday, a top Romney foreign policy adviser told reporters, "If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability (to build a nuclear weapon), the governor would respect that decision." Romney also thinks the option of a U.S. attack should be on the table.

 

tulianr,
As it is 0bama, I can't say I can blame the Israelis for not trusting in the crown prince of failures promises. 0bama's lack of diplomatic skills have turned the ME into a real unstable place.

But you are still stuck with we only have one somewhat of an ally in the whole region. We have blood enemies gaining power etc etc.

In time we will see if the Domino Theory was correct or not.

 

I agree that Iran indeed needs its butt kicked, and that our military can do it without breaking a sweat; but, Iran has no intention of a stand up fight with the United States. They are thinking Asymmetrical Warfare, not Conventional Warfare. Murder and terrorism is Iran's stock in trade. AlQaieda had no chance of winning a stand up fight with us, but they have made our lives interesting for the past ten years or so. Iran will do the same. If a regime change can be rapidly affected, there might be some hope for a fairly clean victory. Otherwise, it could be a long and slippery slope.

 

Iran does need an educational experience.

Currently, the US Military owns the conventional battlefield which leaves an opponent two options; weapons of mass destruction or mass disruption.

Even Incompetano admits terrorists have entered our nation; so, the slope could be longer and slipperier than many might want to believe..

 

The only way to get real change in Iran is to put down their religious leadership - those black-robed bozos run the whole show. Ahmadingbat is just their comedic frontman.

 

You're absolutely right. If we don't cut off the head, nothing changes. "Regime change" never has been a politically correct goal for military operations (somehow the targeted killing of people in uniform is perfectly okay, but not for those wearing suits and robes, even if they are the true bad guy), but it is one of the few goals which the consequences of can have a real and lasting impact.

Most westerners misinterpret the objectives of most Middle Eastern countries and as a result, their words and actions (including those of Ahmadinejad), appear ridiculous to us. We don't see that not only are they playing by another set of rules, those countries and leaders aren't even playing the same game. Someone playing volleyball during a soccer game would similarly look ridiculous to us.

We play global power politics, as do a handful of other powerful nations. Most of these Middle Eastern nations realize that even though they are on the same field as us, they aren't in the same game. They have no hope to win the game, so they play their own game; they trip players, they steal the ball, they lay down on the field. Their only real goal is to influence the play in their region of the field. In Iran's case, the Persian Gulf. They intend that we continue to say "Persian Gulf" and not the "Arabian Gulf" as many Arab nations refer to it. Iran was a regional power once upon a time, and they intend to be again. Their actions are intended for a Gulf audience.

We had much the same difficulty in understanding Saddam's motivations for the things he said and did. They didn't make sense to us, because they weren't meant to. He was playing a different game. He knew that he couldn't defeat the United States military, but if he could frustrate them, make them look impotent, cause the American civilian leadership to finally withdraw the military, he would win. All he had to do was to keep his head down and stay alive.

Iran also knows that they cannot hope to defeat the United States military. It is not their intention. All they have to do is survive, and they win. They win a moral victory, of the sort seen at Thermopylae by King Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans, even if our forces destroy every combatant sent against them. By simply standing up to America, they win prestige. By suffering through our attack and emerging from the rubble, they take on hero status.

They only way they don't win, is if they die, and a secular government takes over; one capable of actually expressing the will of the Iranian people. The Iranian people are in the grip of religious Fundamentalists. The return to that "good old time religion" seemed like a good idea to the people throwing off the heavy handed rule of the Shah. Now they understand that fanatics, secular or religious, make poor leaders.

 

Yeah look at those religious guys in black robes that run the show over there!!!!

Wait...thats Russia....

http://pudongapgov.wikispaces.com/f...g/221350310/Iran_Hierarchy_of_Power_Chart.jpg

here is a pretty acurate link as to how power flows in Iran. I did a research paper on Iranian power structure a few years back. Ahmadinajad is somewhere between the 30th-111th most powerful person in that country.

 

found this and it says it well.

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home."

 

or will Iran start a war that Russia and China will gladly jump into and try to finish?

 

More Conflicts where they supply locals with arms.