Reply With QuoteIt's a week old, but the Saudis said they'll pick up the slack.
Originally Posted by Hoverhind
Three points:
1. China is NKs best buddy because they need them as a shield.
2. Their southern neighbour is somebody we dearly like and would not like to get bombed.
3. Russia (I doubt thats the case now anymore though) and China need NK as a proxy for selling weapons (and mostly technology) to other countries they themselves would not.
It's a week old, but the Saudis said they'll pick up the slack.
And if the US turns into a net oil producer as some anticipate, we can def pick up the slack
Saudis must have their troll face on
The main point in the NK issue is South Korea doesnt want ANY Korean blood shed. If you talk to Koreans you will understand how powerful Korean ethnic nationalism is. A pretty significant portion of South Korea does not like America and our presence there and think we provoke Dear Leader into the situation were in. Korean are pretty much unwilling to shed their own kins blood for whatever reason unless its outright war. The populace is use to and pretty much willing to accept North Korean provocations. If someone sent a commando team to D.C. to raid the White House you'd have war but not so in South Korea. Look at my relatives in China, folks in Taiwan especially the younger generation refuse to acknowledge that their culturally Chinese but never met a Korean who didn't see North Koreans absolutely as their people.
Dear Leader's worse enemy is their best ally. But Iran has no such partner, hardly anyone in the Gulf likes them. Their all busy being Sunni dictators and oppressing Shia's
And your making the assumption that we'd be foolish to get into anything more than just teaching Iran a lesson like in Operation Praying Mantis.
We cant destroy Iran by conventional means but we could get them to STFU for a while by simply raining cruise missiles and B-2 strikes. Their entire means of retaliation is WE WILL STRIKE YOUR FORCES IN THE GULF. Which isn't much of a threat, when we could say. We will rape your country at will.
Eh, wont happen. Fracking is a short term thing. Wells thus far have not produced commercial quantities for very long periods. And environmental costs wouldnt be sustainable at such levels. (Nobody likes radiation in their drinking water + LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF WATER required for fracking) Only shallow oil wells are cheap economically and environmentally to tap. Ask Canadians about tar sands and shale. Gas is slightly better but $$ for infrastructure not there.And if the US turns into a net oil producer as some anticipate, we can def pick up the slack
Saudis must have their troll face on
No body (major) likes Iran, they just like having them as a client state and more importantly as a trump card against the US. So Russia and China can say _____________ or we will not cooperate with you on Iran. Iranians know they cant do anything actually ****ed up cuz neither China or Russia would risk political face internationally to take heat for them.
Last edited by bravosixniner; 01-05-2012 at 12:33 AM.
had to make the neccessary fixes for you.
I think Iran has plenty of extremist groups in the neighborhood that it can rally to its cause.
It should also be taken note of that Iran's military is more advanced, better equipped, better supplied, better trained, and quite possibly a lot more experienced in its specialized type of warfare than North Korea is. And also consider the implication of the fact that while North Korea already spends 20% of its GDP for its military, at the practical limit of its fullest military potential, Iran barely spends 2% of GDP as defense budget.
I don't have optimistic opinion of any kind of military engagement with Iran that take place while countries like Iraq... Afghanistan... Pakistan... Syria and Lebanon are so unstable or uncontrollable. Any short-lived benefit the west would gain from momentarily defeating Iran (while keeping the regime intact by intentionally avoiding Iraq-style occupational warfare) will quickly be offset by renewed extremism in the region in a heartbeat that we tried so hard to exterminate for a decade. This war doesn't need to drag on longer than it needs to be.
May I ask something. When it comes to a World War what do you think would be a trigger point for Russia and China?
WWI the trigger point was in Sarajevo, Bosnia and the attack on Serbia. Beyond the borders of any of the powers.
WWII the trigger was Poland again not a direct attack on England (they knew they were next).
Do you think after Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Syria and maybe Iran, free hand in Pakistan, occasional bombing in Yemen, and other places all with their specific reasons and merits, Russia and China might have some illusions about the intentions of NATO?
There is always a reason for anything. Anything can be justified.
Do not have any illusions, Russia and China do not see an attack on Iran with the same eyes as people in the west do. Justified or not they see it as a threat.
Read this article for the Asian point of view.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak03.html
Iran can be defeated. That is not the problem. Extremists are not a problem as well. Sliding toward a global war is a problem.
I know Iran can be defeated and so can the extremists, but how does anyone say that they will be easier to defeat than North Korea?
lol. Yea right net producer of oil my ass. I guess that will happen when everybody starts checking their tire pressure and using Obama light bulbsAnd if the US turns into a net oil producer as some anticipate, we can def pick up the slack
Saudis must have their troll face on
Last edited by Universals; 01-05-2012 at 03:29 AM.
Anyone can say anything. Some people are better informed than others. Some just make a guess. My opinion is my own based on public sources others are more knowledgeable. A war with the US will not end well for the other side.
No sh1t man, most wars don't end well for either side.
Most wars where the countries share a border don't end well for both but for the US most wars ended really well or at least satisfactory.
On the contrary I think wars that take place between two military powers of hugely unbalanced capability that directly border each other enjoy satisfactory conclusions far sooner. Long logistics line is the main problem for expeditionary wars by the US side. Let's imagine for a moment what would have happened if Iraq and Afghanistan were bordering the US instead of halfway around the world. You wouldn't even need to utilize local powers of questionable loyalty like Pakistan.
Scud missiles at US cities?
Posting Permissions
