US special forces 'inside Iran'

Alexander's Horse · January 25, 2005, 05:21

Originally posted by Ned

FOX is the real voice of America.

Quite wrong. Fox is the voice of Rupert Murdoch, lately of Adelaide Australia and son of Sir Frank Packer, another Australian conservative. Lap it up.

Spiffor · January 25, 2005, 05:29

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, Spiffor, I think you are right. Both sides of the Atlantic seem to want to move towards better relations. I think Bush will definitely let the French, British and Germans take the lead on Iran and will not seek to push them asside if there is not immediate agreement on strategy.

I would like that, but I strongly doubt it

In general, we Euros can't agree on much when it comes to military/diplomatic matters, so it's hard to have a unified position. The Iranians will capitalize on it, and they'll use this weakness of ours to continue developing their nukes.

We'll likely agree to continue the diplomatic efforts we have already begun. However, the US is openly expecting the failure of that strategy. I can't blame them, considering the experience with North Korea.

In the end, either the US will accept that Iran has nukes and rationalize it, or it'll bomb Iran (or let Israel bomb Iran), suffering the criticism of most EU countries.

Ned · January 25, 2005, 05:30

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Quite wrong. Fox is the voice of Rupert Murdoch, lately of Adelaide Australia and son of Sir Frank Packer, another Australian conservative. Lap it up.

You Aussies control the world because the US controls the world and your moguls control US public opinion!

notyoueither · January 25, 2005, 05:33

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because in the only situation that confirms your pattern (that we "always" undermine the US), we did not offer military help.

Again, that may be my bad grasp of the English language showing, but how can the Yanks welcome something they are not offered? (yes, this is a semantics distinction, but you asked me a semantics question)

No, because you couldn't be counted on when the chips were down. When push came to shove, you withdrew troops behind the Rhine. After that, France expected any Cold War government, or any who paid attention after the fact, to trust France?

You yourself are saying France went against the US and UK over Iraq to grab power in the EU. What can you count on such a country for when they are supposed to be an ally?

Your opportunities to lend aid are irrelevant. Your actions when you did act are all that needs be known.

Spiffor · January 25, 2005, 05:43

NYE, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about Iran, 2005 AD and later. The US and the European countries are worried that Iran develops working nukes, and they have adopted different strategies.

This particular thread is about the US sending sepcial forces in Iran, which sparked speculation about a future US-led war against Iran. We then went on to discuss if the US would possibly find allies on the other side of the Atlantic.

You have repeated plnety of times that the US could already dismiss France and Germany as possible allies, because they "always" undermine US efforts. I made the case that both France and Germany took part in similar US-led operations in the past (Iraq1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, although Germany didn't take part in Iraq1 because of its constitution).

Since you cannot deny these facts, you are now trolling me into explaining that France will never get the US back because we are basically "useless". I am sorry to tell you that your romantic perception of international relations, where you have friends you can rest your shoulders on, where friendship and past betrayal are as important as in a TV soap... Well, this perception is completely irrelevant to this thread: you have said nothing that denies the possibility that the US might find allies in France and Germany during an operation against Iran.

Alexander's Horse · January 25, 2005, 05:45

Originally posted by Ned

You Aussies control the world because the US controls the world and your moguls control US public opinion!

I'm afraid Rupert Murdoch doesn't share power with anyone - except him Mum - Lady Murdoch - who still lives in Melbourne Australia. She's a very nice old lady - with a lot of voting stock - so young Rupert has to pay attention.

notyoueither · January 25, 2005, 05:46

Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

Spiffor · January 25, 2005, 05:52

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

And this is precisely the kind of debate I don't wish to enter, because:

1. I like to keep threads at least remotely connected to their original topic
2. The topic of French friendship is something that doesn't interest me
3. You are already so deep in your prejudices that you couldn't make a worthwhile contribution to such a topic. In the two times I got to see your opinion on the matter, I could see the discussion would go nowhere, just like a Mac/Windows thread (the first time, I discussed about it. The second time -that would be this thread- I was wiser).

Chemical Ollie · January 25, 2005, 05:57

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

Begging for help? You mean those evil Belarusians will invade Germany? What will Canada do about it?

molly bloom · January 25, 2005, 06:11

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Lady Murdoch - who still lives in Melbourne Australia. She's a very nice lady.

She is indeed, a great patron of the arts and very much interested in all things cultural.

Rupes must be evidence of some throwback. His mother certainly didn't have a high opinion of his media outlets.

Ted Striker · January 25, 2005, 06:17

Originally posted by notyoueither

$5 on French **** sucking bot.

$5 on you replying to an on topic post with mine with a response about me.

Flattering, yet pitiful.

Ted Striker · January 25, 2005, 06:18

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

Begging for help from who or with what?

Ted Striker · January 25, 2005, 06:19

Originally posted by Spiffor
NYE, in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about Iran, 2005 AD and later. The US and the European countries are worried that Iran develops working nukes, and they have adopted different strategies.

This particular thread is about the US sending sepcial forces in Iran, which sparked speculation about a future US-led war against Iran. We then went on to discuss if the US would possibly find allies on the other side of the Atlantic.

You have repeated plnety of times that the US could already dismiss France and Germany as possible allies, because they "always" undermine US efforts. I made the case that both France and Germany took part in similar US-led operations in the past (Iraq1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, although Germany didn't take part in Iraq1 because of its constitution).

Since you cannot deny these facts, you are now trolling me into explaining that France will never get the US back because we are basically "useless". I am sorry to tell you that your romantic perception of international relations, where you have friends you can rest your shoulders on, where friendship and past betrayal are as important as in a TV soap... Well, this perception is completely irrelevant to this thread: you have said nothing that denies the possibility that the US might find allies in France and Germany during an operation against Iran.

He's not actually interested in debating the topic.

Ted Striker · January 25, 2005, 06:25

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, actually I am close to the so-called "realist" understanding of international relations, where rational self-interest is the primary factor of diplomatic behaviour, and where ideas are are only secondary.

The world's public opinion didn't reject the war because of an efficient PR campaign by France and Germany. It rejected the war because the most people in the world oppose American imperialism, which is what the war looked like to them (I agree with that POV too). The French vocal opposition to the war might have given the world's public opinion a focus (especially European public opinions in countries whose government sided with Bush), but little else.

While I agree with your points, and we know that Chirac is a dumbass bent on creating his own sphere of influence, I guess my point is that the Old Eurocom alliance has formed an alternative to the policies of Bush. That public opinion didn't have much of the same outlet before, but now it does, and this was amplified by Old Europe.

And the public opinion outside of the US mattered zilch in Bush's decision. The only people Bush yould listen to are his advisors and the ones whose opposition could be harmful to him, like his own electorate, or the Brits. Fortunately, it proved easy to manipulate the electorate. It was more difficult to flatter Blair enough, by unergoing the whole UN mess. But that's the kind of lengths you need, if you want to keep your only significant ally.

The whole affair has made me sick to my stomach. And yes he got his way. But every time he steps on people, there are long term consequences.

Alexander's Horse · January 25, 2005, 06:28

Originally posted by molly bloom

She is indeed, a great patron of the arts and very much interested in all things cultural.

Rupes must be evidence of some throwback. His mother certainly didn't have a high opinion of his media outlets.

Lady Murdoch still has a lot of stock. She was recently interviewed and talked about Rupert as if he were a naughty headstrong boy, but with clear affection.

I'm sure Murdoch gets immense satisfaction from the fact that so many Americans think FOX is a genuinely American and patriotic voice. Its a very Australian thing to do - to set people up and hoax them like that. He did exactly the same in Britain with his ultra nationalist newspapers. He just loved dragging the British establishment down and now he's doing something similar to the Americans.

Ted Striker · January 25, 2005, 06:54

He's not the one responsible for those dispicable British tabloids is he?

Alexander's Horse · January 25, 2005, 17:33

Yes he is - he owns the SUN amongst other papers, including the Times. The Fox ultra nationalist model was prefected in Britain when Murdoch took over Fleet Street.

Knowing Murdoch is an Australian, and having heard him speak enough to know he's still very much an Australian in outlook and temperament, I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it - its a huge joke for him - he wouldn't give someone like the execrable Bill O'Reilly the time of day. That raucous bellicose patriotism is so unAustralian, the sort of thing we loath. But it sells and makes Rupert lots of money so he pedals it.

It also helpws George Bush, whome Rupert supports strongly. The editorial line of all Murdoch's publications is set by Murdoch and supports Bush, the war in Iraq, economic reform, small government. Hes doing for Bush what he did for Thatcher, and very successfully.

The world hasn't seen a media mogul like this guy since Randoplh Hearst.

Admiral · January 25, 2005, 21:56

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, I count on Germany and France to come begging for help, once again. What I have argued with you is whether French 'friendship' was worth more than a piece of Swiss chocolate.

This has been somewhat said already, but I'll dare to be repetetive. The predominant school of international relations at the moment is the Realist school. They believe, roughly, that every state will always act in its own self interest, and that recognition and utilization of this is how international relations are to be conducted. The US certainly holds this position. Most of the coalition of the willing are in Iraq because they were bribed. Now, some are in it for ideology, but almost all of them are in it either because of guarantees of US aide (remember the 30 billion that was to go to Turkey in order to be able to attack from her borders?) or the hope of US aide when they need it in the future.
Now, France and Germany decided that it was not in their self-interest to be in Iraq, and, as Spiffor said, used opposition to Iraq to seize power in the EU. The Realist model holds that this is natural, to be expected, and so forth.
In fact, I would go so far to say that the degree of anti-French rhetoric that is being engendered in America is in fact a very conscious political tool. I imagine that it will be used in future negotiations with France to stress how much of a concession it is to allow France to participate, and obtain more from France at the negotiating table. But, in order for this to work, there will have to be a future negotiating table, and you can be sure that the US policy-makers are counting on this.
Basically (and I'd like to point out at this point that I do not agree with the Realist school, and blame it, directly or indirectly, for the various Imperialist atrocities committed by the European powers in the post WW1 and post WW2 environments), the concept of "friendship" in international relations is meaningless. If it is a countries self-interest to go "betray" another nation that has been its ally for a reasonable amount of time, that nation can be expected to do that. The US did it during the Suez crisis, when Britain and France and Israel were trying to punish and assume control of Egypt, and the US, long allies of all three countries, said "not so much," at which point Isreal had to uninvade, and Britain and France had to back down.
Finally, you mention that France has a long history of opposing the US in international policy, doing so throughout the Cold War. Now, during the Cold War, the US pursued an agenda that was wholy in her self-interest, and the countries that were our allies essentially surrendered their foreign policies to the US. That France chose to not do so, and instead to construct her own nuclear program, should not be a surprise, and certainly didn't stop the US from welcoming French support in the first gulf war, and yes, sorry, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
You must open your eyes, NYE. Many things in the world are not as you would want to believe, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist as they are.

notyoueither · January 26, 2005, 03:20

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this is precisely the kind of debate I don't wish to enter, because:

1. I like to keep threads at least remotely connected to their original topic
2. The topic of French friendship is something that doesn't interest me
3. You are already so deep in your prejudices that you couldn't make a worthwhile contribution to such a topic. In the two times I got to see your opinion on the matter, I could see the discussion would go nowhere, just like a Mac/Windows thread (the first time, I discussed about it. The second time -that would be this thread- I was wiser).

Actuallly, Spiff, this started with you proposing that the US needs France and Germany for their foreign policy. I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Be that as it may, you and I disagree about how alliances should be conducted. I argued hard from the side that sees opportunism and past actions to be significant considerations when choosing who to hold close and who you don't care much about. Of course if France offers to send troops to some project the Yanks are unlikely to say no, just as they would not say no to any freebie. They just won't count on it, and that will effect their longer range views. They certainly will not bend their foreign policy for the sake of it.

Spiffor · January 26, 2005, 03:27

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actuallly, Spiff, this started with you proposing that the US needs France and Germany for their foreign policy.

Nope, this started with the following statement of mine:

The US has a real interest in having France and Germany board the same boat once again.

France's and Germany's aid is not indispensable to American policies (after all, the US manages to occupy Iraq without us), but it would significantly alleviate the American burden, thus allowing the US to look for other foreign adventures. Like in Iran.

I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Considering that I didn't say France was needed, it's rather surprising.

Be that as it may, you and I disagree about how alliances should be conducted. I argued hard from the side that sees opportunism and past actions to be significant considerations when choosing who to hold close and who you don't care much about. Of course if France offers to send troops to some project the Yanks are unlikely to say no, just as they would not say no to any freebie. They just won't count on it, and that will effect their longer range views. They certainly will not bend their foreign policy for the sake of it.

Then we have been in agreement since the beginning. (There's the provision that I think the Yanks will be accepting ad-hoc compromises to obtain those freebies, without changing their long-term policies. I think you too will agree with that perception)

notyoueither · January 26, 2005, 03:30

Originally posted by Admiral
Basically (and I'd like to point out at this point that I do not agree with the Realist school, and blame it, directly or indirectly, for the various Imperialist atrocities committed by the European powers in the post WW1 and post WW2 environments), the concept of "friendship" in international relations is meaningless. If it is a countries self-interest to go "betray" another nation that has been its ally for a reasonable amount of time, that nation can be expected to do that. The US did it during the Suez crisis, when Britain and France and Israel were trying to punish and assume control of Egypt, and the US, long allies of all three countries, said "not so much," at which point Isreal had to uninvade, and Britain and France had to back down.

I share your distaste for what passes as acceptable behaviouir by an ally for some. I think it is noteworthy that so much attention is paid to the US and their role in Suez. I would say that it is unlikely there would be an Atlantic Alliance by now were the US and the Brits to continue down that road.

You must open your eyes, NYE. Many things in the world are not as you would want to believe, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist as they are.

My eyes are open. They see what is being stirred up in Europe towards the Yanks and in America towards 'Old Europe' and I have my doubts that there will be much of an alliance left if the 'realism' isn't turned off pretty soon.

notyoueither · January 26, 2005, 03:45

Originally posted by Spiffor

Nope, this started with the following statement of mine:

The US has a real interest in having France and Germany board the same boat once again.

France's and Germany's aid is not indispensable to American policies (after all, the US manages to occupy Iraq without us), but it would significantly alleviate the American burden, thus allowing the US to look for other foreign adventures. Like in Iran.

I disagreed. I might say that your view that France is needed is a prejudice.

Considering that I didn't say France was needed, it's rather surprising.

The context led me to think that you thought that the Yanks should go out of their way to patch things up with Chirac's France. I disagree. I think vipers are safer kept at arms-length than brought to the bosom.

Of course normal relations would be good, but normal would not be courting. The French under Chirac have made it clear that they see themselves as a focal point in a rivalry with the United States. So be it. I'm sure the Yanks are fully capable of keeping things civil and taking the rivalry seriously.

Ted Striker · January 26, 2005, 09:05

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes he is - he owns the SUN amongst other papers, including the Times. The Fox ultra nationalist model was prefected in Britain when Murdoch took over Fleet Street.

Knowing Murdoch is an Australian, and having heard him speak enough to know he's still very much an Australian in outlook and temperament, I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it - its a huge joke for him - he wouldn't give someone like the execrable Bill O'Reilly the time of day. That raucous bellicose patriotism is so unAustralian, the sort of thing we loath. But it sells and makes Rupert lots of money so he pedals it.

It also helpws George Bush, whome Rupert supports strongly. The editorial line of all Murdoch's publications is set by Murdoch and supports Bush, the war in Iraq, economic reform, small government. Hes doing for Bush what he did for Thatcher, and very successfully.

The world hasn't seen a media mogul like this guy since Randoplh Hearst.

Very interesting info.

But also very scary.

Murdoch

Sandman · January 26, 2005, 13:32

Tightening up of UK media monopoly laws.

Cruddy · January 28, 2005, 18:58

Originally posted by Ned

Cruddy, first you list 5 Islamic countries that are alledged "friends of Bush." Then you call him anti-Islam because he supports Israel.

I listed 5 countries that dont have an elected chamber of any sort, and are therefore less democratic than Iran.

I call you and people like you anti-Semite, then, using your logic, because you oppose Israel.

Anti-Iraeli violent policy <> anti-Jewish.

When your actual thinking on this this topic is exposed and analyzed, it is as bigoted and irrational as I suspected.

And you have no bias or bigotry? How any un-WASPish pals you got then?

Dinner · January 28, 2005, 19:35

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
CNN anti-American???? The American voice in the world?

When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

Chemical Ollie · January 28, 2005, 20:13

Originally posted by Oerdin

When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

I know that. That's the reason I'm calling him an idiot (but I did not use that word until now. I try to follow good manners, except when I'm drunk, which I am now).

The rest of the world would call CNN extremely American-biased, in the same manner as Al-Jaz is Arab-biased (while the Muslim fundies would call Al-Jaz anti-islam).

And oh, I can't believe I posted a thread that reached over 300 entries. This must be a personal record!

Dinner · January 28, 2005, 20:24

Ollie, much of CNN's articles are written by foreign reporters and have little if anything to do with America. I especially like CNN's World Report were unedited articles from different countries and different news sources is aired on CNN. You get to hear world views from the people of each country so I wouldn't call that biased towards America especially in light of the Anti-US *****fest it sometimes degenerates into.

Ned · January 29, 2005, 14:29

Originally posted by Cruddy

Anti-Iraeli violent policy <> anti-Jewish.

Cruddy, agreed. I was just using your own logic back at you. Since you seem to agree that your logic is flawed, I hope you withdraw your original statement concerning Bush being anti-Islamic because he was pro-Israel.

Ned · January 29, 2005, 14:34

Originally posted by Oerdin

When Ned says CNN is anti-American he means it doesn't biasly promote one political party over another like Fox News. Much of the Republican establishment plays this game of telling everyone they must agree with Republican policies or they are accussed of being anti-American.

Oerdin, so long as you continue to lie about FOX News, Bush and anything right wing, you will have no credibility. FOX News has as many liberals as conservatives on air.

CNN, in contrast, only had conservatives on the recently cancelled Crossfire. I think they cancelled it to get right of any Republicans on its network.

Besides, CNN recently betrayed its true pinko colors when Ted Turner, its founder, compared FOX News to Hitler. Sounds a lot like Michael Moore and Ted Kenndy doesn't he. Hardly neutral at all.