Romney's threat to Iran with war

[Nano-Passion]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-visits-western-wall-ahead-tough-speech-iran-134303549.html

It is said that Romney will give war threats if Iran does not give up its nuclear program. What do you guys think? I think he is a buffoon, and we definitely should not participate in a war with Iran. Iran is a lot different than Iraq, what makes you think that they won't be able to hurt civilians here in the US as a retaliation. Fighting Afghanistan or Iraq is much different than going into war with Iran.

I'm not sure if Romney is a buffoon or he is trying to get more votes -- either way this is ludicrous. The scary part is that Obama also recognizes that a war is eminent. Neither parties have stood against the possibility of war.

 

[rootX]

I felt his threat did not have any weight.

And, Obama also said once "military action has not been ruled out".

 

[Nano-Passion]

I felt his threat did not have any weight.

And, Obama also said once "military action has not been ruled out".

"One of his top foreign policy advisers who declared that Romney "would respect" an Israeli decision to launch a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities...

Israel fears that Iran soon will have moved its enrichment facilities into impregnable underground locations, meaning time is running out to destroy them with aerial bombing."

I sense a lot of tension building up -- I wouldn't be too surprised if a war culminated over the years.

"Obama has sought to dissuade Israel from a unilateral attack on Iran to allow time for tough sanctions to take a toll on the Islamic Republic's economy and further isolate the country. Obama has said the United States holds open the option of military operations against Iran but has insisted now is not the time for an attack, either by the U.S. or Israel."

Sounds like a cold war to me, waiting to build up. This is a very dangerous situation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/in-israel-romney-takes-hard-stance-against-threats-from-iran-1.896825

 

[ThinkToday]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-visits-western-wall-ahead-tough-speech-iran-134303549.html

It is said that Romney will give war threats if Iran does not give up its nuclear program. What do you guys think? I think he is a buffoon, and we definitely should not participate in a war with Iran. Iran is a lot different than Iraq, what makes you think that they won't be able to hurt civilians here in the US as a retaliation. Fighting Afghanistan or Iraq is much different than going into war with Iran.

I'm not sure if Romney is a buffoon or he is trying to get more votes -- either way this is ludicrous. The scary part is that Obama also recognizes that a war is eminent. Neither parties have stood against the possibility of war.

IMO, he said the same thing every President has said since the issue with Iran and nukes started i.e. "All options on the table" = "Stop or else" = "military action" This is nothing new. Different words; same meaning.

Iran is a lot different than Iraq, what makes you think that they won't be able to hurt civilians here in the US as a retaliation. Fighting Afghanistan or Iraq is much different than going into war with Iran.

How?

 

[Nano-Passion]

IMO, he said the same thing every President has said since the issue with Iran and nukes started i.e. "All options on the table" = "Stop or else" = "military action" This is nothing new. Different words; same meaning.

That is true. Still, the tension is building up. America dragged us to war with Iraq under the false statement of George Bush, "weapons of mass destruction." None were found! I think America has a good chance of dragging us into another stupid war, hey more oil right?

Romney is doing the same thing that George Bush has done; skewing the truth to control the public. He has stated that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. No they are not! They are working on nuclear energy. I wouldn't be too surprised if another war culminates from all the tension in the middle east. There has been murders of some of the Iranian scientists working on nuclear energy -- it is only a matter of time until things get more serious. Israel does not want Iran to build a nuclear weapon, neither does the United States. It is all about trust, and guess how much trust they have in Iran -- nil.

How?

Because in this case you will be in war with ALL of Iran, not a couple of groups in Iran.

 

[chemisttree]

Because in this case you will be in war with ALL of Iran, not a couple of groups in Iran.

What doess ALL of Iran mean? How is that different than the war in Iraq?

 

[AlephZero]

I'm not sure if Romney is a buffoon or he is trying to get more votes.

Those are not mutually exclusive options.

Anyway, he's moved on to insulting Palestinians now. But I guess he wasn't going to get either money or votes form the US Palestinian community anyway.

The presumptive Republican candidate in the the US presidential race told a $25,000-a-head (£16,000) fundraising event in Jerusalem: "As I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognise the power of at least culture and a few other things."

He cited a climate of innovation, the Jewish history of thriving in adversity, and the "hand of providence".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/mitt-romney-israel-economic-success
(also reported on BBC news)

After his UK trip the Sun newspaper ran the headline "Mitt the Twit". Just as well his name wan't "Matt"...

 

[mheslep]

... He has stated that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. No they are not! They are working on nuclear energy. ...

Who is "He"?

... Iran understands that they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that's a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world. And if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then I have said very clearly, that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States

...In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff."

... I think America has a good chance of dragging us into another stupid war ... I wouldn't be too surprised if another war culminates from all the tension in the middle east.

Such as the Libyan civil war?

 

[Nano-Passion]

What doess ALL of Iran mean? How is that different than the war in Iraq?

The difference is that you can look up American militants dancing with Iraqian police. I don't think you will see that happen in Iran. And according to wikipedia, there were Iraqi forces that were on side with American forces.

It falls under the category of MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War).

If you get into war with Iran, Russia or China might be inclined to join in. China takes a large portion of its oil from Iran if I remember correctly. I don't think they would be too happy if America wanted to go in and bully China's oil supply.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Who is "He"?

Romney.

... Iran understands that they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that's a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world. And if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then I have said very clearly, that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States

I don't get it. Did Iran every admit of developing nuclear weapons? I don't think the department of defense or other organizations have stated this either.

Such as the Libyan civil war?

The thing that I fear is another country intervening such as China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China–Iran_relations I think other countries are probably growing weary of the US's foreign policy and its bully-like attitude of foreign resources such as oil.

As confrontation between the United States and Iran escalates, the country is finding itself further pushed into an alliance with China and Russia. And Iran, like Russia, "views Turkey's regional ambitions and the possible spread of some form of pan-Turkic ideology with suspicion".[5]

Russia and Iran also share a common interest in limiting the political influence of the United States in Central Asia. This common interest has led the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to extend to Iran observer status in 2005, and offer full membership in 2006. Iran's relations with the organization, which is dominated by Russia and China, represents the most extensive diplomatic ties Iran has shared since the 1979 revolution. Iran and Russia have co-founded the Gas Exporting Countries Forum along with Qatar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations

 

[rootX]

Sounds like a cold war to me, waiting to build up. This is a very dangerous situation.

Mitt has said and not said many things. He changes colors every day. That's why I said his threat did not have any weight.

Those are not mutually exclusive options.

Anyway, he's moved on to insulting Palestinians now. But I guess he wasn't going to get either money or votes form the US Palestinian community anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/mitt-romney-israel-economic-success
(also reported on BBC news)

After his UK trip the Sun newspaper ran the headline "Mitt the Twit". Just as well his name wan't "Matt"...

Do you think anyone (non-Pales) in US would buy this argument?:

. "It is a racist statement, and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,"

I wonder if Mitt would lose even the intelligent class because of a small anti-Palestinian statement.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Mitt has said and not said many things. He changes colors every day. That's why I said his threat did not have any weight.

Regardless, the growing tension in the middle east is troublesome. At one point, the tension in the string might snap. I'm sure the US and especially Israel is growing more and more uncomfortable of the thought that Iran might produce a nuclear weapon from its growing knowledge of nuclear energy.

 

[ThinkToday]

That is true. Still, the tension is building up. America dragged us to war with Iraq under the false statement of George Bush, "weapons of mass destruction."

I don't think you statement is entirely accurate. http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-8.htm
I was pretty well known during the Clinton administration that there was a significant amount of anthrax unaccounted for. While the nuclear program in Iraq had been on hold, it hadn't been given up. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html While it is true the "smoking gun" wasn't found, the evidence is, IMO, pretty clear where Iraq wanted to go in weapons development.

Romney is doing the same thing that George Bush has done; skewing the truth to control the public. He has stated that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. No they are not! They are working on nuclear energy. I wouldn't be too surprised if another war culminates from all the tension in the Middle East. There have been murders of some of the Iranian scientists working on nuclear energy -- it is only a matter of time until things get more serious. Israel does not want Iran to build a nuclear weapon, neither does the United States. It is all about trust, and guess how much trust they have in Iran -- nil.

FWIW, based on my Iranian friends, I wouldn't be so quick to state emphatically they aren't developing nuclear weapons. Also, http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-14/world/iran.nuclear_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-program-weapons-program?_s=PM:WORLD [Broken]

Because in this case you will be in war with ALL of Iran, not a couple of groups in Iran.

That’s pretty much a generic statement that is almost always true, IMO. The Shea Muslims in Iraq were dominated by the minority Sunni Muslims, as were the Kurds, so I doubt they were too upset with Saddam being removed. Even in our own revolutionary war, not everyone wanted to go to war with England.

Personally, I think the Iraq war was a mistake because Iraq kept Iran in check, and IMO, Iraq would not have allowed Iran's nuclear program to progress to where it is today. Nor do I think Iran would have let Iraq progress very far in it's weapons development.

 

[mheslep]

...
Personally, I think the Iraq war was a mistake because Iraq kept Iran in check, and IMO, Iraq would not have allowed Iran's nuclear program to progress to where it is today. Nor do I think Iran would have let Iraq progress very far in it's weapons development.

That realpolitik logic could have been used similarly to leave 1939 Germany alone , so that it could keep the Soviet Union in check. No so much fun for those slaughtered by either government.

 

[ThinkToday]

That realpolitik logic could have been used similarly to leave 1939 Germany alone , so that it could keep the Soviet Union in check. No so much fun for those slaughtered by either government.

I absolutely agree. We (the US) probably did what will best serve the Iraq people in the long run. The previous Iraq government was about as hostile toward it's own population as it can get. Since it was "Bush's war", I'm not sure people will ever come to realize that we did the best thing for Iraq at great cost to the U.S., it's allies, etc. IMO, right thing for maybe the wrong reason (WMD).

 

[chemisttree]

The difference is that you can look up American militants dancing with Iraqian police.

This makes no sense. I quess you are trying to say that the Iraqi police have a working relationship with the American military? Why wouldn't they?

I don't think you will see that happen in Iran. And according to wikipedia, there were Iraqi forces that were on side with American forces.

So you say. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/A_New_Day_in_Iran.html To quote a story by Afshin Molavi in Smithsonian Magazine,

“You have come from America?” the [iranian police] officer asked. “Do you know Car . . . uh . . . Carson City?”

Carson City? In Nevada?

He crinkled his eyebrows. The word “Nevada” seemed unfamiliar to him. “Near Los Angeles,” he said.

It’s a common reference point. The city hosts the largest Iranian diaspora in the world, and homes across Iran tune into Persian-language broadcasts from “Tehrangeles” despite regular government efforts to jam the satellite signals. The policeman said his cousin lives in Carson City. Then, after inspecting my press pass, he handed it back to me and ripped up the traffic ticket. “Welcome to Iran,” he beamed. “We love America.”

and

Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists.

My guess is that we wouldn't be at war with All of anything! Just like in Iraq.

If you get into war with Iran, Russia or China might be inclined to join in. China takes a large portion of its oil from Iran if I remember correctly. I don't think they would be too happy if America wanted to go in and bully China's oil supply.

So now ALL of Russia and China too? C'mon! I see that recently Russia's largest oil company has won exploration rights in the south of Iraq. And China is reported to be reaping the benefits of the Iraq war. By your logic, the US should go to war with Russia and China?

 

[xdrgnh]

Difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Iraqi people were happy we overthrew Saddam Hussein and destroyed there military. The military of Iraq didn't like Saddam either. That is why despite having a 350000 man army we only lost under a 100 troops and there were no real battles. The army gave up and told Saddam to pretty much F!@# himself. The Iranian people are a proud people and don't want to see there country be overthrown. They rather live in tyranny then have there country be like Iraq. If we attack Iran there military will respond in full force and the casualties will be large for a modern war.

 

[Nano-Passion]

This makes no sense. I quess you are trying to say that the Iraqi police have a working relationship with the American military? Why wouldn't they?



So you say. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/A_New_Day_in_Iran.html To quote a story by Afshin Molavi in Smithsonian Magazine,


and

Great link, I didn't have the slightest of idea. I learned a lot reading it.

"Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/A_New_Day_in_Iran.html#ixzz22LzV1mh7 "

My guess is that we wouldn't be at war with All of anything! Just like in Iraq.


So now ALL of Russia and China too? C'mon! I see that recently Russia's largest oil company has won exploration rights in the south of Iraq. And China is reported to be reaping the benefits of the Iraq war. By your logic, the US should go to war with Russia and China?

Can you clear things up for me here, I thought the US took all of the oil reserves by force. It seems that they were up for bidding?

Difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Iraqi people were happy we overthrew Saddam Hussein and destroyed there military. The military of Iraq didn't like Saddam either. That is why despite having a 350000 man army we only lost under a 100 troops and there were no real battles. The army gave up and told Saddam to pretty much F!@# himself. The Iranian people are a proud people and don't want to see there country be overthrown. They rather live in tyranny then have there country be like Iraq. If we attack Iran there military will respond in full force and the casualties will be large for a modern war.

Yeah so I thought as well. I'm not sure about the legitimacy of this source and how accurate it is in capturing the public opinion but take a look at it.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/A_New_Day_in_Iran.html

 

[chemisttree]

Can you clear things up for me here, I thought the US took all of the oil reserves by force. It seems that they were up for bidding?

It's worse than that. The Iraqis are calling the shots! Both Exxon and Chevron have been locked out of bidding for exploration on occasion for pursuing deals with the Kurds rather than the Iraqi government. Click on the link I provided regarding China reaping the benefit of the war.

The Iranian people are a proud people and don't want to see there country be overthrown. They rather live in tyranny then have there country be like Iraq. If we attack Iran there military will respond in full force and the casualties will be large for a modern war.

Remember the 2009-2010 elections in Iran? Remember the election fraud perpetrated by the government? Iranians want to vote the tyrants out of office. I don't think most would rise up against an invasion as you suggest. But I don't believe an invasion is imminent yet either.

 

[xdrgnh]

Yes Iranians want to take back there country. They don't want foreign power turning them into a weak war torn nation. They rather have have the Tyranny if it means Iran can still be it's own nation.

 

[Nano-Passion]

It's worse than that. The Iraqis are calling the shots! Both Exxon and Chevron have been locked out of bidding for exploration on occasion for pursuing deals with the Kurds rather than the Iraqi government. Click on the link I provided regarding China reaping the benefit of the war.

How counter-intuitive! I really thought we bullied them around for all the oil -_- I don't mean to sound disappointed that America doesn't didn't, I'm only disappointed that I've been under such a false belief!

 

[ThinkToday]

Yes Iranians want to take back there country. They don't want foreign power turning them into a weak war torn nation. They rather have have the Tyranny if it means Iran can still be it's own nation.

Do you even know any Persians? That's not what my Persian friends are saying. The power (guns, etc.) have gotten so one sided, they can't do much. True, my friends don't want their families to get bombed into the Stone Age, but they look more toward decapitation as an option.

It’s not like we haven’t done this before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

 

[BobG]

Personally, I think the Iraq war was a mistake because Iraq kept Iran in check, and IMO, Iraq would not have allowed Iran's nuclear program to progress to where it is today. Nor do I think Iran would have let Iraq progress very far in it's weapons development.

Actually, neither country had much ability to limit the other's progress in weapon's development. In fact, Iraq at least felt that Iran's worry about Iraq's chemical weapons program, and their inability to know exactly what that capability was, played a part in Iran's decision not to invade Iraq when the tide of the Iraq-Iran war turned.

And that also played a part in the US belief that Iraq must not have dismantled their chemical weapons program in spite of international inspectors not being able to find any evidence. Iraq dismantling their chemical weapons program was seen as the equivalent of the US unilaterally dismantling our nuclear weapons.

The reality, that Hussein dismantled the program because it was the only way to keep inspectors from finding evidence, but refused to acknowledge it just to keep Iran off balance, was a strategy that just didn't seem to make sense - hence it was unbelievable to the West.

Our decision was based on a lack of hard intelligence and on only accepting intelligence that supported pre-existing conclusions - plus a lack of imagination. Iraq was a situation that could have been managed instead of a situation that required invasion. (At least from a US point of view. Being ruled by a person that would quell potential rebellions by using chemical weapons on his own people obviously wasn't a good situation for Iraqis unless they happened to be Sunnis in the Baath party.)

The threat of Iranian nuclear weapons isn't that Iran will nuke Israel - which would be stupid given the almost certainty of Israeli nuclear weapons. The threat is Iran being able to give support to Palestinian groups fighting Israel with no fear of Israel striking at the source of their opponent's warmaking capabilities.

And, like Iraq, the problems associated with Iran are things that could be managed. There's no inherent advantage to Iran in pissing off its biggest customers. In fact, as another poster pointed out, Iran initially saw 9/11 as an opportunity to improve its relations with the West - at least until it was included in the "axis of evil" and grouped with a nation that was invaded. I think that move probably set back any chance of motivating Iran to buy into a Western relationship for years, in spite of the economic gains improved relations would provide for Iran.

(And, yes, many Iranians see the disadvantages of being alienated from the West. I'm just not so sure they see the Iranian leadership as being the sole cause. They'd be very happy to see changes in Iran, but not so happy to be invaded.)

 

[Andre]

A comprehensive overview of Iran and WMD here. The result could be considered inconclusive, but I see strong points for the uselessness of them. Also not all political leaders lie, so we may not rule out that President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei just told the truth.

So I would be very skeptical for a president candidate calling for war without any solid justification, ultimately and most likely leading to the same result this time, albeit that there is not a iron dictator to free the people from.

 

[mheslep]

A comprehensive overview of Iran and WMD here. The result could be considered inconclusive, but I see strong points for the uselessness of them.

Strong points for the uselessness of WMD?

So I would be very skeptical for a president candidate calling for war

No US candidate even back in the primaries has called "for war". They have been nearly unanimous in saying Iran should not be allowed to gain control of nuclear weapons, including the current President. Do you disagree with at least that goal?

 

[Andre]

uselessness of WMD?

Ahmadinejad:

We have already expressed our views about nuclear bombs. We said those who are seeking to build nuclear bombs or those who stockpile, they are politically and mentally retarded. We think they are stupid because the era of nuclear bombs is over."

"Iran, for example, should continue its efforts and tolerate all international treasures only to build a nuclear bomb or a few nuclear bombs that are useless? They can never be used? And is not capable of confronting with the U.S. nuclear arsenals? The overall budget of our national atomic energy agency is $250 million, and the whole budget is aimed at peaceful activities."

Just maybe this is sensible language.

Chirac:

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

Furthermore Iran signed and ratified the NPT which also allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Of course I am aware of this incident. But it seems to me that finding (traces of?) 27% enrichment also implies that there are inspectors keeping a keen eye on what's going on. Trust but verify.

Diplomacy and negotiations should be the way ahead not war talk.

Oh and why I think the way I think is explained in this thread.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Ahmadinejad:



Just maybe this is sensible language.

Chirac:




Furthermore Iran signed and ratified the NPT which also allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Of course I am aware of this incident. But it seems to me that finding (traces of?) 27% enrichment also implies that there are inspectors keeping a keen eye on what's going on. Trust but verify.

Diplomacy and negotiations should be the way ahead not war talk.

Oh and why I think the way I think is explained in this thread.

Those are some good links, thanks.

 

[Andre]

You're welcome, my message is just that we must stop thinking in terms of them and us. We're all in this life together.

 

[Nano-Passion]

You're welcome, my message is just that we must stop thinking in terms of them and us. We're all in this life together.

Yes we are all a human race, however there will always be classifications between different groups. Its just a fact of human life. I'm not endorsing anything, just conveying the reality of human nature.

Reading about some of your links, I can't help but think of this as another cold war building up. Especially with the bombings of some of the nuclear scientists in Iran.

Government officials are not just concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons, they are also concerned that this will encourage other neighboring countries to also have nuclear weapons, and that other countries will also feel threatened by Iran's nuclear program. I think this is more serious than what some people like to believe. Chirac elicits this quite nicely in the link you provided.

 

[Andre]

secretly I'm hoping that this is one of the very rare threads here that has lead to peaceful understanding rather than the usual flaming wars.

 

[Nano-Passion]

secretly I'm hoping that this is one of the very rare threads here that has lead to peaceful understanding rather than the usual flaming wars.

It should be that way. All debates should be taken from a humble perspective with a degree of uncertainty.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell

But that is only part of the problem of course.

 

[CAC1001]

How?

Iran is a wholly different animal than Iraq or Afghanistan. For one, it has about 3.75 times the surface area of Iraq and over twice the population. And unlike Saddam Hussein's military, which had already been decimated from the Gulf War, Iran has a much more capable military. The other problem is that it would be very difficult to place troops in the areas needed in order to invade Iran. None of the countries bordering Iran, with maybe the exception of Afghanistan or Azerbaijan, would allow the U.S. to set up an invasion force. And getting forces to Afghanistan or Azerbaijan would require going through some tough areas, such as the straits between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea that are controlled by Turkey, or through Pakistan. Iran has a lot more support around the world then Iraq had, especially from China and Russia, who see Iran as a check on Western power in the area. And they also might see a U.S. invasion as a national security threat considering that Iran supplies a sizeable amount of oil and natural gas to them, or at least to China.

 

[CAC1001]

The thing that I fear is another country intervening such as China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China–Iran_relations I think other countries are probably growing weary of the US's foreign policy and its bully-like attitude of foreign resources such as oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations

Where has the U.S. been "bully-like" regarding foreign resources like oil? The U.S. could have turned Iraq into a colony and monopolized the oil there, but it did no such thing. The countries that are being bully-like are Russia and China (Russia with its former satellite countries, China with areas like the Phillipines); part of the reason Russia invaded Georgia was to gain control over the energy pipelines in that region so as to bully additional nations.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Where has the U.S. been "bully-like" regarding foreign resources like oil? The U.S. could have turned Iraq into a colony and monopolized the oil there, but it did no such thing. The countries that are being bully-like are Russia and China (Russia with its former satellite countries, China with areas like the Phillipines); part of the reason Russia invaded Georgia was to gain control over the energy pipelines in that region so as to bully additional nations.

Thanks for your posts, I'm getting a good perspective on all of this since I don't regularly keep up with politics and world affairs.
Russia has a lot of satellite countries. http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com/maps-of-russia.html I read that satellite countries are ones that are under a lot influence. Does this mean that they are also essentially allies?

What do you mean by "China with areas like the Phillipines." Can you include a source please.

 

[CAC1001]

Thanks for your posts, I'm getting a good perspective on all of this since I don't regularly keep up with politics and world affairs.
Russia has a lot of satellite countries. http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com/maps-of-russia.html I read that satellite countries are ones that are under a lot influence. Does this mean that they are also essentially allies?

Nope, the former Soviet satellite states are not necessarilly allies of Russia, but Russia wants to control them. It sees their allying with the Western countries like the United States as a threat to its sphere of influence. It is very wary for example of allowing countries like Ukraine into NATO for example as then that means if Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO would have to respond militarily. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic that lean much more towards the United States the Russians want leaning to them.

What do you mean by "China with areas like the Phillipines." Can you include a source please.

China wants to be the hegemon in that region of the world. A country they have been especially bullying of as of late are the Phillippines, which after having told us to leave years back, are now asking the U.S. to come back into that area as a military presence. The U.S. is responding by re-opening the bases of Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base.

For some links:
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/top-news/26804-exclusive-adviser-to-un-cautions-china-vs-bullying-phl [Broken]
http://www.zamboangatoday.ph/index....11286-which-option-will-the-bullied-take.html

One big problem is that China asserts a whole lot of areas around that region as belonging to them, which a lot of other countries in the region disagree with. The most famous example is Taiwan, which China asserts is really a rogue Chinese state that they at some point want to re-take by force.