This Guy Restores Some Of My Optimism

[Comrade Tribune]

Still totally unconvinced; case closed.

[DinoDoc]

Predictable.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Still totally unconvinced;

As am I. Reading your paranoid lefty fantasies that lack even the bare necessities of facts is quite boring and I'm quite glad that you declared the matter closed if that is all you have to bring to the table.

[Comrade Tribune]

OK, I´ll accommodate you once more:

Israel offers:

1- A Bottomless Pit for Western Money
2- Lots of Angry Enemies

Iran offers:

1- Lots of Oil

I´d prefer having Lots of Oil to having Lots of Enemies and a Bottomless Pit to throw my money into. What´s lefty and paranoid about that?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Iran offers: A schizophrenic and ever shifting internal tug of war between Khamanei and the fundamentalists (including lots of underclass, especially young poor males - people with excess energy, insufficient employment, and little to lose) against Khatami and some 70% of the Iranian electorate - mostly softer, previously westernized middle and upper classes who've learned to adapt to the "revolution" in order to survive.

A deep-seated and mutual distrust and antipathy towards arabs.

A religiously-based schism and desire to expand the influence of a minority Islamic sect.

The potential for a destabilizing degree of military power, which is why all our arab buddies *didn't* want us to finish off Saddam and why they still don't want us to finish off Saddam.

A potential for significant territorial expansion and strategic domination of the gulf if the Hussein government in Iraq collapses and a satellite Shiite revolutionary movement takes hold in the Basra area.

Israel offers: not much, but less overall negatives than Iran.

I think Bush was ****ing stupid to give Khamanei a propaganda coup over Khatami, but the most the US can realistically do in the present Iranian political climate is offer low-key encouragement to Khatami, and take a wait and see attitude.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think Bush was ****ing stupid to give Khamanei a propaganda coup over Khatami, but the most the US can realistically do in the present Iranian political climate is offer low-key encouragement to Khatami, and take a wait and see attitude.

Hey; I agree with that!

One thing, however:

-Iran has just enough problems that they are not, and will not in the foreseeable future, be a problem for anybody outside their region. They may be a problem for Israel, but: So, what?

And one more thing:

-Even if what you say sounds plausible, there is nothing in it that would give anybody a right to attack Iran or force a government change on them. If Saddam fulfills a purpose in keeping things balanced, well, keep Saddam. I didn´t say you shouldn´t.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"Rights" are such an abstract concept in geopolitics.

I certainly don't want to get rid of their government - Khatami is a good man. The key is to find a way to help him "lose" a few Ayatollahs and their disproportionate constitutional grip on the Iranian government, without getting caught at it.

Anyway. Iran doesn't have to be a problem outside their region since they've got a front row seat in the most critical geographic area for the developed world.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Anyway. Iran doesn't have to be a problem outside their region since they've got a front row seat in the most critical geographic area for the developed world.

Hey; you minced my words. I didn´t just say Iran isn´t a problem outside its region. I said Iran isn´t a problem for anybody outside its region. Particularly, Iran isn´t a problem for Europe, either directly or indirectly. So I want no (financial or military) part in any action against Iran.

I simply believe we don´t have a problem with them. And they don´t have a problem with us. If they have a problem with the USA, it stems from the time when the CIA removed Mossadegh. Which is entirely understandable. But I think they would let it rest, if the US would.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Hey; I agree with that!

One thing, however:

-Iran has just enough problems that they are not, and will not in the foreseeable future, be a problem for anybody outside their region. They may be a problem for Israel, but: So, what?

And one more thing:

-Even if what you say sounds plausible, there is nothing in it that would give anybody a right to attack Iran or force a government change on them. If Saddam fulfills a purpose in keeping things balanced, well, keep Saddam. I didn´t say you shouldn´t.

Its a matter of Iran being a problem for Israel, but of Iran, by its actions, preventing a peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
That is a matter of great concern to the US, as the lack of such a peace weakens the US in the region. Of course the US could avoid that by abandonging Israel, as you desire, but the question of whether Iran is a problem is based on what US policy is likely to realistically do. I was arguing from realistic view of what impacts the US now, not legalistically discussing a casus belli. Whether the US now has a casus belli against Iran is moot, as the US is not now going to war against Iran, and, given the political situation in Iran, is not likely too.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Hey; you minced my words. I didn´t just say Iran isn´t a problem outside its region. I said Iran isn´t a problem for anybody outside its region. Particularly, Iran isn´t a problem for Europe, either directly or indirectly. So I want no (financial or military) part in any action against Iran.

I simply believe we don´t have a problem with them. And they don´t have a problem with us. If they have a problem with the USA, it stems from the time when the CIA removed Mossadegh. Which is entirely understandable. But I think they would let it rest, if the US would.

which iranians have the problem with the US? 70% of Iranians voted for Khatami, who wanted to improve relations with the US. He was stopped by the Ayatollahs, who decided such moves were "unislamic" The Ayatollahs, IIUC control the judiciary, the police, and the military.

LOTM

[Transcend]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Apolyton is damn slow now

see the rise of the curb. US wants Europe to share the burden.

If it's about terrorism it's all well and good. But Europe will propably be resistant to finance the US pursuit of its own interests which the US really does try to mask it under the label «terrorism». It is an assesment of interests.

For example Greece would very reluctantly go along since the US is backing Turkey's claims to the Aegean (or does very little to stop them).

The rest of Europe will also be reluctant since there is a clear difference of interests too. Europe must feel it is also in danger of those the US labels freely as «terrorists» or it will be resistant.

If the US keeps pressing and the EU keeps refusing the NATO (between US and EU) cohesion will drop.

Your chart is interesting. I assume the past military expenditures have been converted to the 2001 US Dollar. It seems that the military budget was fairly constant after the end of WW2. But what you fail to mention is that GDP has grown many times since back then, thus the actual US military expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen by many times since the 50s.

So much about over-stretching.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Goingonit


This "theory of mine" was pioneered by John Maynard Keynes.

Military spending and breaks for businesses aren't what Keynes proposed...

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Transcend


Your chart is interesting. I assume the past military expenditures have been converted to the 2001 US Dollar. It seems that the military budget was fairly constant after the end of WW2. But what you fail to mention is that GDP has grown many times since back then, thus the actual US military expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen by many times since the 50s.

this hardly contradicts what I say considering that we are talking about percentage of GDP , wouldn't you say?

[Transcend]

Originally posted by paiktis22


this hardly contradicts what I say considering that we are talking about percentage of GDP , wouldn't you say?

Didn't you initially claim that the current US military is beginning to overstretch?

[macaskil]

I suspect the cost of the actions in Afghanistan so far has hardly made a dent in overall US spending. Bombs are actually quite cheap.

Re: Iran. Since Iran has got its wish of getting rid of the Taliban at no cost to itself I think US-Iranian relations are going to improve unless the lunatics really do take over the asylum in both countries.

As far as Comrade Tribune is concerned, it is a mistake to assume that what happens in the Middle East is of no concern to us in Europe. Until we find an alternative to oil, we have to be interested. If you play civ3 you will recognise the situation of civs trying to grab the last oil square. The one that ends up with no oil does not last long.

I wonder if CT subscribes to the view, popular in the UK, that ANY anti-American government is OK even if it consists of woman-hating medieval fascists?

By the way, I am a socialist. I just happen to think that religious fundamentalism - whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian - is dangerous and that any nation has the right to defend itself if attacked. As members of NATO European countries are obliged to assist, as the US would have helped had the Soviets invaded.
If we don't like this arrangement we should just get out of NATO.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Transcend


Didn't you initially claim that the current US military is beginning to overstretch?

Nein, I said that it goes to that path and to determine wether this has occured and to what degree we need much more information than we have here and now.

oh and


what you said about GDP being bigger now that it was before has no bearing on what we are talking because we were using %.