Trumps Beginning of the end

[Dryce]

The way Iran see it is they are fighting the oppressor. USA is the aggressor and us along with them have caused misery to millions of innocents.
Our imperial actions to implement regime change is for our economic gain and nothing else.

The way Iran also plays it is that they are fighting an oppressor.

If Iran was just sitting there meek and mild and insular with a bit of a bad attitude then you would have a very clear point. But they're rather more than that - more like a regional hydra with tentacles spread. At the same time there are quite a few Iranians who aren't happy with their government's activities and just before tre current crisis kicked off Iran was restricting its internet access and tryung to suppress demonstrations - so it now has the opportunity exploit the emotions to distract internally from its own problems.

My usual questions to those who would criticise the US vs whoever (eg. Russia, Iran) are (a) where would you prefer to live and (b) who would you rather have as your neighbour.

The reality is that a lot of people vote with their feet which is why many Iranians travel to the west.

I think at the same time there are valid questions about what the hell the US or any other western country is doing in the ME. If the argument was oil then that has changed - long term we don't want to consume oil any more. If it's about spreading supposed peace and democracy then it is well demonstrated that doesn't work. Maybe we should be concerned about nuclear weapons ? But the reality is that Iran will get there regardless of sanctions or whatever and really doesn't seem to be genuinely inclined to actually abide by any agreement (which rather devalues any statements they may make about resuming or extending work).

Meanwhile in the UK we have experienced the Russians use nuclear material and chemical agents in our country to do very bad things ....... Who needs drones and missiles and all the surveillance infrastructure and cost?

 

[Dryce]

Lunatic and deranged w@nker Trump threw in dynomite into the hellfire when Americans assassinated Iranian General.
Trump might have opened Pandora's box?

Thing is - if you admit the box is there - you admit there is a nasty problem - so that then raises the issue of whether you do something (and maybe open it a bit on the assumption you can do it on your own terms) - or wait for it to open itself at a time of its choosing.

Personalising this to the actual state of mind of the US President is an easy way for people to deflect from the real problems. Mr Trump may well be blamed by people on his own team if things don't work out as they want - but the reality is that this isn't about one person or one moment in time. There was a build up to this over quite a while and there are teams of people on both sides applying their minds and energy to advance their own positions.

 

[Mancstar]

The way Iran also plays it is that they are fighting an oppressor.

Good point, they do get a lot of support playing that card at home and in the wider ME.

 

[Dryce]

Lol.
Devils advocate here - does America and the 'west' think they can loot and pillage any country they want

For all the problems inflicted - I don't get impression the 'west' has managed to 'loot or pillage' anything.

But if you point out that then other people will argue some sort of more esoteric equivalent of looting or pillaging through economic instruments or some conspiracy of the suppodsed 'military-industrial' complex.

Recalling 2003 I guess there was an ideal that all these troops and tanks would roll up to Baghdad and Saddam would flee or be captured and there would be some sort of celebration and everything would be OK and nearly 20 years on Iraq would be a vibrant economic and democratic beacon. That's not the same as looting and pillaging. Though it certainly is about gaining some sort of profit or benefit - though not equal to some sort of reasonable mutial benefit. This ideal missed the bloody and violent point that Iraq wasn't a cohesive state but a mix of factions in different regions with different influences and different aspirations and complicated loyalties that barely hold together.

I can't help feeling that if the US was really out to loot and pillage in the traditional nasty sense that it might operate rather more successfully in Iraq. Though we all would probably be a lot more scared of it with it.

And Europe has some relatively recent experience of looting and pillaging done very strategically over a period of a few years with Germany very dominantly integrating much of the continent and exploiting labour and extracting resources - US interference on that occasion is seen in a more positive light.

 

[Flyinspanner]

They don’t “loot & pillage” in a traditional sense,...... but if you look at things like the rebuilding of infrastructure after a war (eg Kuwait) where did all the contract get awarded to?

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

Pentagon Task Force’s $675 Million in Contracts to Rebuild Afghanistan Found Wasteful


Firms like Halliburton (**** Cheney) got the lions share.....convenient

 

[m80]

In the west we fret about destabilising a bad situation and making it worse. Other players are looking to destabilise as an opportunity to exploit.

Most of the advanced world is at it, for advantage.
The sanctions create hardship at a very local level and financial instability at a national level. That will incite anti state (their own) feeling. The activists are doing the UAS's job from within, and often with a bit of help here and there.

Trump might have opened Pandora's box?

Intentionally in my view. As usual the backlash is 'mainly' remote form the source. Of course there will be an increase in terroist activities, incited by the states being threatened.
For this of course there must be great confidence in our (the West) intelligence services or that principle goes t's up.

At the same time there are quite a few Iranians who aren't happy with their government's activities and just before tre current crisis kicked off Iran was restricting its internet access and tryung to suppress demonstrations

As above in't first answer.

For all the problems inflicted - I don't get impression the 'west' has managed to 'loot or pillage' anything.

Let's ignore Haliburton (and the likes of) there.
The strategy of smash the place up and then rebuild it with financial advantage, and instal an infrastructure that enables improved future control isn't difficult to see.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

I think the issue here is similar to the Iraq War debate in the UK.

There's nothing wrong in military operations aimed at bringing prosperity to your own citizens, we all know that Britain did this for several centuries, but this becomes an issue when the government isn't being truthful with its citizens regarding the reasons for exercising the country's military might overseas.

Ah, so that'll be like World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars I and II, then?

"Hey chaps, let's join the War in Europe, because it'll give us massive industrial advantage, enable the Europeans to flatten one another, and then be be deep in debt to us for two decades."

Doesn't sound as snappy as "We're joining the War in Europe because the Japs have bombed the military base that we built to threaten South East Asia."

 

[Mancstar]

Pillage and loot is what it is.
Lets not fall for the hype that we are libirators, freeing women and bringing democracy.
Heard of the Chilcot Report? They were carving up the spoils of the Iraq war before it had started!!
The military machine is the single biggest consumer of oil and guess who pays for it? The humble tax payer. Oil and war go hand in hand. The Iraq war may be over buy the big oil companies remain there.

The Iraq war was to go after weapons of mass destruction to keep us safe? Nothing to do with Saddam turning of the taps of his oil fields? Removing Saddam allowed sanctions to be lifted and for the horsemen to once again make big profits, the oil there was state owned (nationalised) until the war, how dare they have a nationalised oil industry.

 

[Dryce]

Doesn't sound as snappy as "We're joining the War in Europe because the Japs have bombed the military base that we built to threaten South East Asia."

Well it does sound snappy to those who tend to forget the ideolological complications of the times.

As for needing a military base in the Pacific to dominate - remember that the US was in control of the Philippines and that the primary Japanese target at Pear Harbour were the ships which were major military assets - and that the Japanese had their own expansion and territory - including the Marianas (interesting side effect of the post WW1 setup).

Similarly one of the aspects that is forgotten is that British imperial expansion in the 1700s and 1800s is that it wasn't just about acquiring squares in the world chessboard - but significantly also about denying them to others. And this principle of denial being as important as acquisition still stands today when it comes to the bigger strategic outlook.

This is quite poignant at the moment as regards taking territory as Iran would be very happy to get control of Syria and Russia would be very happy to have navy facilities there.

Equally it is important to other nations to deny them these acquisitions.

What is missing from all of this to further complicate things is a cohesive EU acting as a real European super power. If the EU was more like the US, Russia, or China then it would be interfering in Syria not because it wanted the territory - but simply to keep the Iranians and Russians out.

 

[Dryce]

The Iraq war was to go after weapons of mass destruction to keep us safe? Nothing to do with Saddam turning of the taps of his oil fields? Removing Saddam allowed sanctions to be lifted and for the horsemen to once again make big profits, the oil there was state owned (nationalised) until the war, how dare they have a nationalised oil industry.

That focuses on acquisition. You should also factor in the denial argument. Which is that a belligerent Iraq threatened the taps on other countries' oil fields. So you sell a strategy internally to those who can make and authorise decisions and it's not all about upside but also elimination of potential downside - which becomes additional upside.

 

[m80]

and Russia would be very happy to have navy facilities there.

I thought they already had that, and an air force base,
a pre agreed reward for bailing Assad out, at the last minute before his regime collapsed.
That reduction of disadvantage might be required should
Russia need to re deploy its rather large fleet that could otherwise be locked into the Black Sea.

The eu doesn't have an idependant capability to back up any ME ambitions, cohesively.
So far it's dependant, for want of a far more accurate expression, on the US, who now want to increase US taxes on the eu individual states to further the ongoing US ambitions, Germany in particular.

 

[Dryce]

So far it's dependant, for want of a far more accurate expression, on the US, who now want to increase US taxes on the eu individual states to further the ongoing US ambitions, Germany in particular.

Well to be fair Germany in particular - given its size and econoimc power - doesn't appear to be pulling its weight within NATO.

And the US is caught in Europe - it could threaten to withdraw from NATO if its partners are unsufficiently committed - but that would open another can of strategic worms that would likely come back to bite. Interesting vice in which to be squeezed.

 

[Dryce]

They don’t “loot & pillage” in a traditional sense,...... but if you look at things like the rebuilding of infrastructure after a war (eg Kuwait) where did all the contract get awarded to?

I think I mentioned:

But if you point out that then other people will argue some sort of more esoteric equivalent of looting or pillaging through economic instruments or some conspiracy of the suppodsed 'military-industrial' complex.

 

[HB]

Iran think they can fire missiles and detonate bombs at whoever they wish but no one is allowed to fight back. Soleimani was busy plotting further destabilising tactics around the world which no doubt involved further deaths. Why cant the Iranian regime just live peacefully with the world, why do they need to be the cause of further deaths and disruption, why when they have a dispute with the US do they try to bring other Muslim countries into it and call it a holy war when it is really a dispute involving only Iran (and a few Iranian backed fanatics). Dont the Iranian regime realise that Trump is unpredictable and could order the US military to obliterate Iran if he gets fed up with the threats, everyone needs to back off with the threats (including the US) and stop all this stupidity.

I think you’ve got the country wrong in your first three lines. You are actually taking about the good old USA here.....

 

[noogieman]

Thing is - if you admit the box is there - you admit there is a nasty problem - so that then raises the issue of whether you do something (and maybe open it a bit on the assumption you can do it on your own terms) - or wait for it to open itself at a time of its choosing.

Personalising this to the actual state of mind of the US President is an easy way for people to deflect from the real problems. Mr Trump may well be blamed by people on his own team if things don't work out as they want - but the reality is that this isn't about one person or one moment in time. There was a build up to this over quite a while and there are teams of people on both sides applying their minds and energy to advance their own positions.

With the killing of the General, Trump caused severe problems for USA and Europe.
Petrol prices going up and up.
Iran will not forget this act of aggression.
Iranians say USA is satan who needs to get their @rse whooped.
There could be sleeping cells now waking up from their slumber being on stand by for years living in the States?
Only god knows what will happen in the near future with the retaliation from the Iranians?
Probably something for Americans to be very cautious about?

People will have bland opinions about Mr. Trump, probably many of them are not very nice?

 

[grober]

The problems arise when the "national interest" in reality turns out to be a clash between internal" factional interests." The "political health" of the nation might be judged on how much the two really co-incide. Sadly the voting citizenry seemed to be happy to accept this blurring of the motivation for their countries foreign policy until its brought into sharper focus when their own bodies begin to pile up.
In terms of whether the military - industrial complex is real or not, it was coined by 5 Star General -later -President Dwight D Eisenhower- And he was in a position to know!
QUOTE:-
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.


Military–industrial complex - Wikipedia

 

[m80]

With the killing of the General, Trump caused severe problems for USA and Europe.
Petrol prices going up and up.
Iran will not forget this act of aggression.
Iranians say USA is satan who needs to get their @rse whooped.
There could be sleeping cells now waking up from their slumber being on stand by for years living in the States?
Only god knows what will happen in the near future with the retaliation from the Iranians?
Probably something for Americans to be very cautious about?

People will have bland opinions about Mr. Trump, probably many of them are not very nice?

The assassination couldn't have gained more attention than it has, consider the alternative of the plane accidentally falling from the sky prior to landing in Bagdad. There is design by the action being public and the US proudly accepting responsibility.

Then consider the US pulling out of Syria a while back. After all that effort to bring IS to it knees, why would the US risk losing the advantage gained?

These are different adversaries but with simlarities, there is a lot of terrorist and guerilla style tactics used.
IS were forecast to go underground when things got too close for survival. They would melt into the populations with thoughts to try again later. So how do you find them then? Give them confidence enough to stick their heads up again, and also antagonise.

There is obvious risk and there will be collateral losses, but 'maybe' such strategy has some chance of success.
The biggest risk in that strategy, in his own opinion, is to Trump if it goes wrong, with an election not so far away.

 

[Dryce]

With the killing of the General, Trump caused severe problems for USA and Europe.
Petrol prices going up and up.

But this happens when Iran hijacks tankers or sticks limpet mines on them or attacks Saudi oil refineries.

Iran will not forget this act of aggression.
Iranians say USA is satan who needs to get their @rse whooped.
There could be sleeping cells now waking up from their slumber being on stand by for years living in the States?
Only god knows what will happen in the near future with the retaliation from the Iranians?
Probably something for Americans to be very cautious about?

Iran is very vocal and belicose.

The US is rather less vocal (well normally is with other presidents) but is institutionally very vengeful if directly attacked, persistent, larger, and more capable.

So the Iranians have a calculation to make. They have done this before. They have quite a lot of options. Their government may have created a problem for themselves if they have raised expectations amongst their hardline supporters because if they fail to follow through they will seem weak. The problem is that if they overstep the mark then they'll make even more trouble for themselves - possibly in places that hurt them more than the latest action and are less visible to the world.

 

[noogieman]

I meant sleeper cells not sleeping cells.

Iranians have been naughty boys causing attacks on Saudi Oil and other stuff.
When stuff like this happens markets react negatively and petrol prices goes up, gold goes up and some currencies goes down.
Bad things happens!

 

[LXA]

(can I delete a response? - if so, how? pleaseta) x oops