AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: The Tehran-Caracas Axis ?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The Tehran-Caracas Axis

Quote:With Iranian nuclear aspirations gaining notice, it's worth directing attention to the growing relationship between Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. The Reagan administration repulsed Soviet efforts to set up camp in Central America. Iranian designs on Venezuela perhaps deserve similar U.S. attention.

Great. :?
I suspect it is one of those "enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenerios.
A pox on them all.
I suspect that the 1990s is simply a blip in the history of violence and war. Probably by 2007, there will be another war somewhere, and I still predict that there will be a nuclear exchange, or nuclear terrorism in the next decade.

It is bound to happen sooner or later. Perhaps a nice trip to Jerusalem and Rome would be advisable soon, with the taking of lots of picture.
...and when we're done with the perpetrators, mapmakers will have a boon in writing them off of the globe.
No more Holy Lands. No more Mecca and Medina.

What would come after?
You two are very guilty of "overreach" here. It would take many, many fission devices to accomplish what you guys are talking about.

What worries me is the loss of life, and holy relics. They could be rebuilt, but the result would be a great deal of dead people. And as far as rewriting countries, and no more of this or that,...........forget about it. Wink1
John, it would take many such weapons to destroy the planet - but Israel is a tiny country, and one nuclear device would erase it from the map. Tel Aviv is on the coast and only ten miles from the West Bank.

Mecca and Medina are just two little cities. Mecca has 1.3 million people but is located in a narrow, sandy valley which would focus a nuclear wave front across the entire area. Medina is a tiny round city of .9 million, and a nuke there would obliterate the entire city.
WmLambert Wrote:John, it would take many such weapons to destroy the planet - but Israel is a tiny country, and one nuclear device would erase it from the map. Tel Aviv is on the coast and only ten miles from the West Bank.

Mecca and Medina are just two little cities. Mecca has 1.3 million people but is located in a narrow, sandy valley which would focus a nuclear wave front across the entire area. Medina is a tiny round city of .9 million, and a nuke there would obliterate the entire city.
I can't believe we are havin this discussion. [Image: Triste01.gif] [Image: Triste14.gif]
I can. And I don't mind it either.
Gunnen4u Wrote:I can. And I don't mind it either.
You don't mind it either because......................

We're talking about how much of a country can be wiped out by an atomic bomb. I'm not blaming the commentators, I'm talking of the shape our world is in. You should mind about that.

You're sure getting grumpy in your senior year.
We're not playing the hand yet, we're just discussing the ante. Is there a bid that will force the Iranians out of the game before they can bet?
WmLambert Wrote:We're not playing the hand yet, we're just discussing the ante. Is there a bid that will force the Iranians out of the game before they can bet?
I think my statement has been blown up way too big.

I'm merely sad that this is even a subject to be considered. A decade ago this wouldn't even have been a neuronal spark in anyone's mind except for deep-positioned spies or fanatics. It's sad that everyday people can discuss this with such informality. It's a statement of the condition our world is in IMHO, which condition isn't very good.
No, Solo~, your statement was blown up just right. It is far better to discuss the unmentionable rather than allow it to come about through averting one's eyes from insanity.
Solo, we all forgot those sweet times when the world balanced on the edge of nuclear war. Personally, I think the nuclear war is impossible. This is a kind of weapon that scares its owner, first of all.
Green Wrote:Solo, we all forgot those sweet times when the world balanced on the edge of nuclear war. Personally, I think the nuclear war is impossible. This is a kind of weapon that scares its owner, first of all.
Alright. Both Wm and Green are correct. And, I had forgotten the time when the world balanced on the edge of nuclear war. It is true. Thanks for the reality check.
SoloNav Wrote:You don't mind it either because......................

We're talking about how much of a country can be wiped out by an atomic bomb. I'm not blaming the commentators, I'm talking of the shape our world is in. You should mind about that.

You're sure getting grumpy in your senior year.

Given I picked a good time to sign up for the Army after High School, all things must be examined. It'll be that sector of folks who will do alot of the shaping.

I've always been grumpy. 8)
Gunnen4u Wrote:
SoloNav Wrote:You don't mind it either because......................

We're talking about how much of a country can be wiped out by an atomic bomb. I'm not blaming the commentators, I'm talking of the shape our world is in. You should mind about that.

You're sure getting grumpy in your senior year.

Given I picked a good time to sign up for the Army after High School, all things must be examined. It'll be that sector of folks who will do alot of the shaping.

I've always been grumpy. 8)
I hadn't noticed before. I guess the glow is vanishing from our relationship. :lol:

You'll be in that sector that will do a lot of shaping? Is that what you said?
the fact they both want to sell their oil in Euros instead of worthless greenback.
Spengler Wrote:Washington does not wish to fight but will if necessary. The Europeans, and even the Saudis, will fight rather than allow Iran to become a nuclear power, although they wish to fight much less than Washington.

If Washington were to deliver a military ultimatum to Iran tomorrow, the results would be a painful jump in oil prices, civil violence in Iraq, low-intensity war on Israel's northern border, and a wave of anti-Americanism in the Arab world - not an inviting picture.

But if Washington waits another year to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, the results will be civil war to the death in Iraq, the direct engagement of Israel in a regional war through Hezbollah and Hamas, and extensive terrorist action throughout the West, with extensive loss of American life. There are no good outcomes, only less terrible ones. The West will attack Iran, but only when such an attack will do the least good and the most harm.
Spengler is as close to Peter Wiggen's "Locke" and "Demosthenes" as anyone can be. Many people wonder who he really is. Michael Savage thinks he must be someone brilliant, like Kissinger, but doesn't think it is he.

Anyway - Spengler makes the logical assumption that we will take preventative action against Iran, supported by the U.N., Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, and most of the world - but that we will be forced by international whiners and Quislings to wait too long, until the cost of the action will be far greater than at the present time. He says there will be a cost to be paid, but the longer the scenario is stretched out in time, the harder and deeper will be that cost.
Pages: 1 2