Re: Yet Another Roswell Thread

On 22 Jul, 13:27, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I see your logic. I am not absolutely certain. It depends whether you
perceive terrorism or conventional war to be the major threat. The
problem Israel faces is that it does not have anyone to negotiate
with. The Palestinians complain constantly about Israeli security
measures.

If you had one power Iran terrorism would be met by a conventional
response (air raids). Terrorism would ultimately lead to a
conventional war. You can have conventional war where you have an
address.

Iran would be a power that was interested in stability. Squabbling
Sunni states cannot hope for a conventional victory yet they are
extremely effective at spreading chaos and instability + economic
decline and popular discontent.

The West by the way is not threatened by conventionall war. The US
will win any conventional war relatively easily. What it is in fact
threatened with is an unstable region and popular discontent. If there
is discontent in Iran or any strong country it will either be taken on
board or suppressed repessively.

I think terrorism is a minor threat. They cain maintain a certain
nuisance level, but that´s basigly all what they have been capable of
being. Iran is interested in power. They are not at likelly to go to a
direct war with the sunni states. But, it looks likelly that in the
coming years they´ll become a nuclear power. They do have got
ballistic missile technology. So it looks likelly that eventually they
´ll aquire the capability to nuke Israel and for that any other
country within the region.

If you look at the numbers of people actually killed as a result of
terrorism it is in fact quite a small number. Actuarially it has been
compared to lightning. However the main threat of terrorism (in the
West that is) may well lie in the security measures taken. If a
community is effectively locked down it will not function. If it
becomes harder to get into the US the country will be avoided.

If you have long queues at airports this has a considerable economic
impact.

The sunnis will feal very threatened,
lurking behind the background is an old hatred between sunnis and
shites which could rise to the foreground. They are likelly to be
fighting Iran soon in a proxy war inside Iraq. Iran could perhaps make
use of varyous *** minorities about the Middle East. The sunnis are
likelly to use repression against those. These gowernments after all
are not particularly noted for being nice, and sunni minorities tend
to have a second class citizen status of one sort or another. A
situation ripe for trouble.

If aid is given to Saudi Arabia the great Western public is going to
find that hard to understand. "Why are we expending blood and treasure
for a country that basically hates us?" I think the Saudis are
bleating rather too loudly about a situation they themselves have
helped too create.

The Sunnis are not nice - you can say that again. If they carry out
repression Iran is going to give them help. The West should keep the
straights of Hormuz open and that should be the extent of its
involvement. As I said Western public opinion will not tolerate
anyting else.

The question then is which side will appear more threathening to
Israel? My guess is that Iran with its nukes, and gowernment of
mullas, will look like the greater threat.

Israel has in fact siezed a lot of Arab land and is consolidating this
with a wall. Terrorism is not such a minor threat. It is one of the
main factors producing an increasing polarization between the two
sides.

The big big question is - Where is Iran going? There is a great deal
of discontent in Iran. Unemployment is 50% amoung the young. There are
pragmatic voices. Question - Would MAD be possible between Iran and
Israel? I do not see anyone being effectively able to stop Iran. After
Iraq the appetite for military action may have evaporated.


It will still be effective in transferring power to Russia and China.

Depends on how Russia and China will play that situation, but yes both
may gain.


Historically power passing to Asia may be inevitable, but it will be
speeded up enormously by the actions of GWB. One other point. I am
giving my AI examples to you in french. Fred McCall states, almost
proudly, that he does not know Spanish. My reply to him was a matter
of pure population statistics. US + Lattin America can form a block
which will rival Asian countries. The US has been very good at NOT
winning friends in Latin America. This is another part of the
geopolitical equation and one that is often glossed over.

China is going to become a more powerful state than the USA. So is
India in time, though bit longer into the future. USA can maintain a
strong postition in alliance with other states. This is the great
idiocy of the neoconcervatives, the idea that the USA is a hyperpower
and that thus it can act alone without anybody ellses consent. All the
past gowernments of USA from the WW2 have known USA needs its allies,
that simply hasen´t changed. USA will continue to need its allies.
That means, USA will have to accept that somtimes, if the allies don´t
agree, it is not getting its way. Even in the future with two
superpowers, India and China, USA with Europe and number of other
allies, can maintain a position as the third power.

History teaches us that wars do not bring about political change but
hasten it. The US is indeed a major power but not a hyperpower. It
needs to do things with allies. With Europe consolidating itself into
the EU one would have thought America would have consolidated into the
OAS, NAAFTA or whatever. The US is unwilling to run anything like an
EU. In the EU there is freedom of movement. For some reason the US has
failed to raise living standards in Latin America and is unwuilling to
institute anything like freedom of movement.

It was always inevitable that Asia would assume a place of importance
in the world. The war on terror has I think accelerated this.

With allies the US is very strong. Europe at the moment largely feels
that the US has brought this crisis on itself. Security may well help
to bring on a sense of isolation.


- Ian Parker

.

Quantcast