You want to see the main reason for why Russia and China are trying to effectively block additional sanctions against Iran?
Take a look here:
China seems to be having a fuel problem. Russia simply wants the price of oil to go up because of financial prosperity and China is trying to keep it's economy going as much as possible.
Of course Ahmadinejad is out there running his mouth, but Iran's top banking guy is warning about Iran's economic health.
If you don't think this isn't about oil and financial success, take a thought on this: China lead the negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program. Russia was "concerned" about North Korea's nuclear program. Yet, both seem indifferent to the exact same situation over in Iran.
Why? Because Iran wants to be financial partners with both and all three want to poke a stick in the eye of the US.
The wild card here of course is Israel. Ahmadinejad can talk about making any attack "worse then the quagmire in Iraq" all he wants, but Israel is extremely ruthless when it comes to defending itself.
With it's own nuclear weapons, it's not inconceivable for Israel to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran's facilities. Israel is also know for it's extremely sophisticated and accurate intelligence gathering abilities. If it's concerned over a nuclear program, my bet is they have solid proof of the Iranian's intentions.
What's troubling about all this though is Russia and China's complete lack of global responsibility here. They talk about "regional stability", yet they don't seem to mind it that a nutjob in Iran wants nuclear energy. With that being said, all other Arab nations in the region are thinking "We don't want Iran to have nuclear technology. Take care of it or we'll start programs of our own".
And who can blame them? If Iran's blatant support of Hezbollah doesn't scare the shit out of people in the region, then perhaps it's theocratic nutjobs that are in power that should.
No one is suggesting that we invade Iran. I'm not suggesting it either. That's what a lot of people seem to think. If we attack, we have to invade. We don't have to do that. We can run airstrikes all day long and own the skies over Iran within hours. We wouldn't be morally obligated to help them rebuild jack like we are in Iraq.
People talk about the "quagmire in Iraq", yet they don't realize we beat the snot out of them inside of months. Now it's simply rebuilding under fire.
But then you have Russia pulling this standard statement:
Russia says dialogue rather than punishment or talk of military action offers the best way to ease tension over Iran.
When you have the leader of Iran saying that they have no interest in negotiations, it remains difficult to believe what Russia is talking about.
Hopefully, there's more to this story going on behind the scenes that we are being publicly told about. Hopefully Russia and China are talking with Iran saying "look, you got to stop enrichment. We'll help you out in other areas, but enrichment's got to stop", but the evidence certainly points towards the opposite.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
sure, we can bomb iran for ten years without sending in troops. but to what end? it will be yet another quagmire. a bigger one, stretching from pakistan to iraq.
a quagmire does not mean we did not "win." but one can win battles without losing a war, one fought with political means as well as military.
iran does not threaten the US unless, of course, we overreact and attack them. their GDP is roughly that of connecticut's. and so what if they have a nuke or two? how do they threaten us or israel, together in possessions of thousands of nukes? they are not suicidal. to argue that they would fire off a nuke and willingly be obliterated in return is totally absurd.
there is no threat. this is yet more hype from the "war on terror" privatized war profiteers, as well as the patriotic right.
Actually, Iran openly supports Hezbollah and Hezbollah has directly threatened the US. That's the crux of the entire problem. If it was Norway who wanted nuclear energy, no one would care.
However, with a President who thinks that Armageddon is upon us, I don't think that allowing them access to nuclear technology is a good thing.
We've even offered to help Iran with it's nuclear program by giving them nuclear fuel that cannot be made into a weapon. They refused. Why? There's only one reason why, they want a weapon.
It's not about Iran directly having a nuclear weapon, it's about Iran's support of terrorist organizations that have threatened the US that has everyone worried. It's not inconceivable for them to give them a weapon to use on Israel or the US.
Sure, if they do that, then it's glass parking lot time for Iran, however, are you willing to allow them to get a weapon and HOPE that they don't do anything rash with it?
You're talking about hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the fence on this.
Their GDP means nothing, so I fail to see why you even included that.
I don't know about you, but if there was a nation who openly supported Al-Qaeda and was looking for nuclear technology, wouldn't you be nervous too? It's the same thing, only Al-Qaeda has managed to pull off bigger terrorist attacks then Hezbollah has.
There is no threat? I remember people talking the same way about Al-Qaeda in the 90's, blaming Clinton for "wagging the dog" when he lobbed two missiles into Afghanistan.
Travis
Post a Comment