Afghanistan shares a border with Iran and China. There is no reason why Karzai shouldn't meet with them. Long after the USA & NATO leave, those countries will still be neighbors.

Yes indeed, but we must remember, that the USA and west are only there to hunt down the Taliban, who make women wear Bhurkas.

Oil pipelines don't fire up the average Westerner. (unless they are large shareholders in the Oil Co's of course)

Just need a few stories on Afghan and Iranian cruelty to fluffy dogs, and we are well away to controlling the new silk road.

China operates the new port in Pakistan Gwadar, to avoid shipping it via Mallaca, and cut transport costs etc. But it would be much easier to get it straight from Iran, not needing boats etc.

Afghanistan shares a border with Iran and China. There is no reason why Karzai shouldn't meet with them. Long after the USA & NATO leave, those countries will still be neighbors.

Precisely said.

Afghanistan shares a border with Iran and China. There is no reason why Karzai shouldn't meet with them. Long after the USA & NATO leave, those countries will still be neighbors.

Yes indeed, but we must remember, that the USA and west are only there to hunt down the Taliban, who make women wear Bhurkas.

Oil pipelines don't fire up the average Westerner. (unless they are large shareholders in the Oil Co's of course)

Just need a few stories on Afghan and Iranian cruelty to fluffy dogs, and we are well away to controlling the new silk road.

China operates the new port in Pakistan Gwadar, to avoid shipping it via Mallaca, and cut transport costs etc. But it would be much easier to get it straight from Iran, not needing boats etc.

It's a good thing that only the Great Satan cares about oil and not the like the world's finest China and Russia.

It's a good thing that only the Great Satan cares about oil and not the like of the world's finest in China and Russia.

Difference being China doesn't have to bulldoze country after country to get to its oil! The Brand new port in Gwadar Pakistan is proof of that! Plus they run the Panama canal!!!! No guns needed!

Russia... well.... Genghis Khan invaded Russia first! for 2 hundred years... So only fair to take Kazakhstan! - Or trade with it at least..

Russia needs access to Caspian sea, for Caspin basin oil... and for ships/pipeline from Iran...which leads from Iraq/Saudi etc

The west is building up missile bases on the west frontier, trying to keep Ukraine from falling back to Russian sphere...

Seems to me that the west, and USA are the aggressors here. Ukraine was founded by my ancestors, as was Moscow. Ukraine is Russia.

Just a matter of time.

Ukraine: Kiev - "It gradually acquired eminence as the centre of the East Slavic civilization, becoming in the tenth to twelfth centuries a political and cultural capital of Rus', a medieval East Slavic state."

Rus = Russia.

Yes, the European countries are certainly screwed!

America of course has oodles of oil, in Canada, Gulf of Mexico.. not counting the trade they could get from S.America. Oops forgot they just 'colonised' Haiti.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...haitioil27.html

The Greater Antilles, which includes Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and their offshore waters, probably hold at least 142 million barrels of oil and 159 billion cubic feet of gas, according to a 2000 report by the U.S. Geological Survey. Undiscovered amounts may be as high as 941 million barrels of oil and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, according to the report.

But why pay for the oil when you can invade a country with tax dollars and take it for free! (well of course the oil companies take a hefty slice!)

UK, France, Germany, etc.. whoops.

I understand the US developed the middle east oil (apart from Caspian oil - which was Russian & French-Rothschilds), and has an interest keeping the area from falling into radicals hands...but lately they have just gone crazy...

If Pakistan is on the list of countries to invade... I would be very afraid.. It has nukes, Uk has the second highest Pak population after Saudi Arabia...

anyway, we shall find out if the US and Israel are going to flatten and invade Iran. The oil speculators will make a fortune!

China just reduced its imports from Iran by 40%... they think something is coming.

So do I.

An opinion on the recent suicide bombing in Russia can be found here: http://www.oilprice.com/article-the-true-c...o-bombings.html

History and economic interests is what we have to look for I think.

An opinion on the recent suicide bombing in Russia can be found here: http://www.oilprice.com/article-the-true-c...o-bombings.html

History and economic interests is what we have to look for I think.

*shudder*... much easier to go through Khazakstan. But then again if Khazakstan had US bases... and Azerbaijan as well...

April 9, 2007 In a timely decision, Azerbaijan recently (mid-March) granted NATO the permission to use two of its military bases and an airport to "back up its peace-keeping operation in Afghanistan" including support for NATO's "supply route to Afghanistan". NATO's special envoy Robert Simmons insists that the agreement has nothing to do with US plans to wage aerial bombardments on Iran.

...

The Baku Ceyan pipeline is controlled by an Anglo-American consortium led by British Petroleum (BP)

Azerbaijan is also strategic in view of its maritime border with Iran in the Caspian sea. In this regard, the U.S. Navy is involved in supporting the Azeri Navy, in the area of training. There is also an agreement to provide US support to refurbish Azeri warships in the Caspian sea.

Thats a bit like having a Russian fleet in say.. Cuba, or S.America... training, and more importantly - "refurbishing" the Navy! - I don't think they mean new curtains!

Azerbaijan is also strategic in view of its maritime border with Iran in the Caspian sea. In this regard, the U.S. Navy is involved in supporting the Azeri Navy, in the area of training. There is also an agreement to provide US support to refurbish Azeri warships in the Caspian sea.

Thats a bit like having a Russian fleet in say.. Cuba, or S.America... training, and more importantly - "refurbishing" the Navy! - I don't think they mean new curtains!

I would really like to know how the US Navy got any of its ships to the Caspian Sea. That would be a neat trick.

Difference being China doesn't have to bulldoze country after country to get to its oil! The Brand new port in Gwadar Pakistan is proof of that! Plus they run the Panama canal!!!! No guns needed!

But why pay for the oil when you can invade a country with tax dollars and take it for free! (well of course the oil companies take a hefty slice!)

I understand the US developed the middle east oil (apart from Caspian oil - which was Russian & French-Rothschilds), and has an interest keeping the area from falling into radicals hands...but lately they have just gone crazy...

If Pakistan is on the list of countries to invade... I would be very afraid.. It has nukes, Uk has the second highest Pak population after Saudi Arabia...

anyway, we shall find out if the US and Israel are going to flatten and invade Iran. The oil speculators will make a fortune!

China just reduced its imports from Iran by 40%... they think something is coming.

So do I.

Good post WR sadly filled with fact & common sense....

I would correct the tax dollars though as all they use now is printed dollars that have long surpassed any chance of being covered by taxes. Basically counterfeit. As China & Japan buy less & less T bills/ Bonds it will become more obvious.

They cannot continue to extend credit to a customer they know is broke & beyond any means of paying it back other than to default or inflate the debt away.

As for seeing if Israel & US invade Iran ...I think it is a given but,it will be Israel acting as the lead dog for the US first.

Remember Iran has recently decided as Saddam did not to take USD. The result of that has to be the same.

Because without USD being used as the petrol dollars everything collapses even faster for the US. They will go to any length to keep the USD as the reserve currency & pegged to oil

This mess has no possible good ending .

Difference being China doesn't have to bulldoze country after country to get to its oil! The Brand new port in Gwadar Pakistan is proof of that! Plus they run the Panama canal!!!! No guns needed!

China's need for oil is growing rapidly. There's one really big reason they don't "bulldoze" any country for it - the USA. Russia coud proabably even kick China's ass.

The west is building up missile bases on the west frontier, trying to keep Ukraine from falling back to Russian sphere...

Seems to me that the west, and USA are the aggressors here. Ukraine was founded by my ancestors, as was Moscow. Ukraine is Russia.

This Ukranian-American respectfully disagrees.

Ukraine: Kiev - "It gradually acquired eminence as the centre of the East Slavic civilization, becoming in the tenth to twelfth centuries a political and cultural capital of Rus', a medieval East Slavic state."

Rus = Russia.

More precisely, "Russia" comes from the old word "Rus". Kievian Rus was around centuries before Moscow. Not sure about you Byelorussians.

But why pay for the oil when you can invade a country with tax dollars and take it for free! (well of course the oil companies take a hefty slice!)

Excuse me, we've been paying top dollar for that oil. If this were 100 years ago or more we would just take it (spoils of war) but alas, times have changed.

btw - Love the maps.

As for seeing if Israel & US invade Iran ...I think it is a given but,it will be Israel acting as the lead dog for the US first.

Not a chance in hel_l Israel and/or the US invade Iran.

As for seeing if Israel & US invade Iran ...I think it is a given but,it will be Israel acting as the lead dog for the US first.

Not a chance in hel_l Israel and/or the US invade Iran.

I almost agree. I would agree if you said not a chance in the next 5 years.

But then, perhaps your crystal ball is better than mine....the world will be a very different place in 5 years time, so maybe you are completely right.

For the meantime, sanctions will be imposed, not that sanctions will do anything except unify nationalists and fundamentalists.

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

.............

I made a valid presumption based on what is on the table. If you have any real evidence of the "jerk" being a "loose cannon", it would really assist this discussion.

Alex:

3. Why are you so rabid about defending what Ahmadinijad is saying? The jerk is a loose cannon.

Thanks for any response.

Come on chuck, be reasonable. You say he is a loose cannon, presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". When that is refuted, you come round full circle and ask why he should be defended because he is a loose cannon, based on a statement that has had alot of doubt put on it...... round and round we go. Surely the circle stops at the most credible piece of evidence? In this case, that Ahmedinejad has been misquoted (probably deliberately at that because it fits the Western right-wing agenda).

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

.............

I made a valid presumption based on what is on the table. If you have any real evidence of the "jerk" being a "loose cannon", it would really assist this discussion.

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

More precisely, "Russia" comes from the old word "Rus". Kievian Rus was around centuries before Moscow. Not sure about you Byelorussians.

Excuse me, we've been paying top dollar for that oil. If this were 100 years ago or more we would just take it (spoils of war) but alas, times have changed.

Spoils of war for the elite... not for Joe average!

When President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, administration officials told Congress that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction with oil revenues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/mi...ast/19iraq.html

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat..

In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”

------------------------------

Companies with 'interest' or axe to grind with Iran:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/.../197642465.html

On Oct. 29, 1954, an accord was signed which confirmed the role of the consortium as service contractor and authorised it to operate in a 250,000 sq km area in south-western Iran for 25 years. By then, the consortium had been enlarged from eight to 14 firms and named Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (IOP). It was owned as follows:

40% BP,

14% Shell,

7% Exxon,

7% Gulf Oil,

7% Mobil,

7% Standard Oil of California (now Chevron which in the 1980s bought most of Gulf Oil),

7% Texaco (now part of Chevron),

6% Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (now Total),

5% Iricon Agency Ltd.

Iricon grouped six US companies which held the remaining 5% as follows:

1/6 by each of American Independent Oil, Getty Oil and Charter Oil;

1/3 by Atlantic Richfield (Arco - now part of BP);

1/12 by each of Continental (Conoco) and Standard Oil of Ohio (now part of BP).

--------------------

Apolgies mr Ukrainian American... I'm well aware of the origins of Kievan Rus.. It was my ancestor, Mr Rurik of Jutland and his band of Rus!!

Here is a little more recent take on the Iraqi oil situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8082802200.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/inter...q_oil/index.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0706013588.html

http://4oil.blogspot.com/2009/12/russia-ch...n-iraq-oil.html

.............

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

OK, so I presumed wrong.....so you say....but considering what has been tabled, your allegation of loose cannon will continue to appear to be merely your opinion.

.............

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

OK, so I presumed wrong.....so you say....but considering what has been tabled, your allegation of loose cannon will continue to appear to be merely your opinion.

Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?

Here is what I said previously about my decision making. It would seem to relate that my statement about Ahmadinejad is, indeed, merely my opinion. If you were to read my post copied below, you would note I use the word "opinion" two times.

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise.

__________________________________________________________

Posted by chuckd @ 2010-03-31 15:03:26 (quote)

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

Wouldn't you think my decision making would be flawed if somebody came to me and told me, "You know, that fellow Harcourt is a real idiot. Did you read his post today on the XYZ thread?"

Now, if I answered in the affirmative and agreed that you are, indeed a real idiot based on only that one post, would it not seem that I was totally unfair in my judgement and really not thorough in my decision making?

However, if I answered, "Yes, I have read the body of his work and I agree with you that he is a real idiot", then it would seem I had been deductive in my reasoning and I had made a responsible decision based on all the facts at my disposal.

I try to make my decisions based on the best available information at hand and hardly have made my decision that Ahmadinejad is a "loose cannon" based on the one quote you have cited. My decision is based on the body of work I have seen coming from him, much as my OPINION of you is based on your entire body of work and not merely one post.

This post and reference to you should not be taken as any admission or OPINION from me that you are, in fact, a real idiot. I have used this example for instructional purposes only.

_____________________________________________________

PS: The word "opinion" changed to caps on this copy. They were not in caps on the original.

.............

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

OK, so I presumed wrong.....so you say....but considering what has been tabled, your allegation of loose cannon will continue to appear to be merely your opinion.

And here we have another example of HC's concept of 'manning-up' - his unique way of admitting when he is wrong.

When President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, administration officials told Congress that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction with oil revenues.

--------------------

Apolgies mr Ukrainian American... I'm well aware of the origins of Kievan Rus.. It was my ancestor, Mr Rurik of Jutland and his band of Rus!!

1) I remember Wolfowitz saying that Iraq would/could/should pay for reconstruction with their oil revenues. I'm not sure if that has started to happen yet. We are probably paying for the reconstruction just like we are paying for the oil. BTW - I think one of the first oil contracts the Iraqi gov't awarded went to China. Americans should ask the Brits, French on other Euro former-powers how to properly pillage a country they have invaded because we can't seem to get that part right.

2) So you're really a Viking? I can only trace my family back to "Slovo o polku Igoreve". OK, not really.

Iran and the bomb...

Watching al Jazeera English this morning the talking head ran through a long list of statements by various Western powers since 1991 claiming how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "6 months away", "5 years away", etc and it still goes on 20 years later. Makes it difficult to trust they know what they are talking about.

But we don't need to invade Iran. The vast majority of people were born after the 1979 revolution. They don't hate America and the West. They will take care of business (I'manutjob & the Mullahs) themselves. We just have to be careful how we play our hand and be ready to offer support diplomatically or otherwise.

Iran and the bomb...

Watching al Jazeera English this morning the talking head ran through a long list of statements by various Western powers since 1991 claiming how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "6 months away", "5 years away", etc and it still goes on 20 years later. Makes it difficult to trust they know what they are talking about.

But we don't need to invade Iran. The vast majority of people were born after the 1979 revolution. They don't hate America and the West. They will take care of business (I'manutjob & the Mullahs) themselves. We just have to be careful how we play our hand and be ready to offer support diplomatically or otherwise.

Yes many do know this.. I think?....But...Same as when inspectors told & told again that no WMD's were in Iraq...

Funny how little it all matters when the time comes to push agendas.

Also true what you say about lack of hate for Americans.... It was true for decades in many countries....But mistrust for the US govt is often mistaken for hate of the American people & the West.

Remember when Castro said the same?

.............

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

OK, so I presumed wrong.....so you say....but considering what has been tabled, your allegation of loose cannon will continue to appear to be merely your opinion.

Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?

Here is what I said previously about my decision making. It would seem to relate that my statement about Ahmadinejad is, indeed, merely my opinion. If you were to read my post copied below, you would note I use the word "opinion" two times.

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise.

__________________________________________________________

Posted by chuckd @ 2010-03-31 15:03:26 (quote)

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

Wouldn't you think my decision making would be flawed if somebody came to me and told me, "You know, that fellow Harcourt is a real idiot. Did you read his post today on the XYZ thread?"

Now, if I answered in the affirmative and agreed that you are, indeed a real idiot based on only that one post, would it not seem that I was totally unfair in my judgement and really not thorough in my decision making?

However, if I answered, "Yes, I have read the body of his work and I agree with you that he is a real idiot", then it would seem I had been deductive in my reasoning and I had made a responsible decision based on all the facts at my disposal.

I try to make my decisions based on the best available information at hand and hardly have made my decision that Ahmadinejad is a "loose cannon" based on the one quote you have cited. My decision is based on the body of work I have seen coming from him, much as my OPINION of you is based on your entire body of work and not merely one post.

This post and reference to you should not be taken as any admission or OPINION from me that you are, in fact, a real idiot. I have used this example for instructional purposes only.

_____________________________________________________

PS: The word "opinion" changed to caps on this copy. They were not in caps on the original.

No chuck, I'm not trying to distress you at all. I'm not being belligerant at all, and not trying to get into a verbal battle again. Not at all.

I don't blame you for having a pessimistic POV. If I really wanted to just snipe, I think it would be obvious.

Lets look at what is on the table: Some people declared Ahmadinejad a threat, citing his "wipe Israel off the map" speech. The interpreted import of that speech has been discredited fairly credibly.....but it still remains the only citation of the man's instability. Thus, any further assertions that Ahmadinejad needs to be dealt with, should have reasoning.

If I proffer an OPINION that he is a saint, I think, in fairness to this forum (not to mention for crediblity of my argument), that I should offer some reason for my opinion.

Iran and the bomb...

Watching al Jazeera English this morning the talking head ran through a long list of statements by various Western powers since 1991 claiming how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "6 months away", "5 years away", etc and it still goes on 20 years later. Makes it difficult to trust they know what they are talking about.

But we don't need to invade Iran. The vast majority of people were born after the 1979 revolution. They don't hate America and the West. They will take care of business (I'manutjob & the Mullahs) themselves. We just have to be careful how we play our hand and be ready to offer support diplomatically or otherwise.

I watched that..."Empire" was the program and you quoted the host's summing up (although you neglected to mention that it was mainly US officials that made the unfulfilled predictions ). I thought Thomas Pickering a very intelligent man that I admire, and the chap from CSIS too. Hehe...it is because of that program that I agreed with you that the US and Israel are unlikely to invade Iran.

All 3 guests, and the host (an Iranian I believe?) seemed to concur on most things.

Also an oft-neglected fact was brought up in that program: that the US encouraged Iran to develop a nuclear capability!

Further to that "Empire" program... I was hoping to hear mention of the Iran Bourse and the US$ angle that Flying has brought up (which I find quite credible).

Was it diplomatically avoided, do you think koheesti, or rather that it just had no opportunity to come up....or that it has no bearing?

Iran and the bomb...

Watching al Jazeera English this morning the talking head ran through a long list of statements by various Western powers since 1991 claiming how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "6 months away", "5 years away", etc and it still goes on 20 years later. Makes it difficult to trust they know what they are talking about.

But we don't need to invade Iran. The vast majority of people were born after the 1979 revolution. They don't hate America and the West. They will take care of business (I'manutjob & the Mullahs) themselves. We just have to be careful how we play our hand and be ready to offer support diplomatically or otherwise.

I watched that..."Empire" was the program and you quoted the host's summing up (although you neglected to mention that it was mainly US officials that made the unfulfilled predictions ). I thought Thomas Pickering a very intelligent man that I admire, and the chap from CSIS too. Hehe...it is because of that program that I agreed with you that the US and Israel are unlikely to invade Iran.

All 3 guests, and the host (an Iranian I believe?) seemed to concur on most things.

Also an oft-neglected fact was brought up in that program: that the US encouraged Iran to develop a nuclear capability!

And you have neglected to mention the other nations who made "unfulfilled predictions". Is there really any reason to say that America has been making these predicitons? Is there anyone here who doesn't know that already? Hard to miss it if you even casually watch international news. Since you watched the entire program (and I only caught the end), please enlighten us with the other countries who made these claims. I'll start you off with one...GERMANY. (10-1 says you do not give the list)

The same can be said about WMDs in Iraq. You, Alex, an everyone else love to point out the obvious - that the USA said that Saddam had them. You conveniently leave out that so did Russia, France, Germany, Jordan and dozens of other countries (including leaders in Saddam's own Revolutionary Guard). Yet you love to portray the USA and Bush as "lying" about it.

As for the USA encouraging Iran, I wonder if you knew that France encouraged Iraq? I'm sure you did, but what puropse would it serve you ever to mention it? Here's a pic of Saddam and his ally Jacques Chirac on a tour of a French nuclear facility in 1975.

Further to that "Empire" program... I was hoping to hear mention of the Iran Bourse and the US$ angle that Flying has brought up (which I find quite credible).

Was it diplomatically avoided, do you think koheesti, or rather that it just had no opportunity to come up....or that it has no bearing?

Probably no bearing. I read where the UAE and other Gulf Arab nations were moving from the dollar. I guess after America invades and installs a "puppet" gov't the theory will hold some water.

Yes many do know this.. I think?....But...Same as when inspectors told & told again that no WMD's were in Iraq...

That's not true. I'm old enough to remember 2003 and Saddam toyed with Blix by surrendering just enough WMDs days before Blix was to report to the UN so that he could show how he was co-operating with inspectors. So to say that the inspectors "told & told again that no WMDs were in Iraq" is not true. There was that one former inspector who kept repeating it but his credibility was ruined when he admittedto being paid $250,000 by Saddam to make a documentary. I wonder if it ever got made? LOL

.............

Your presumption was wrong.

If it is your aim to become politically astute, please do your own research. I, frankly, cannot be bothered to do it for you.

OK, so I presumed wrong.....so you say....but considering what has been tabled, your allegation of loose cannon will continue to appear to be merely your opinion.

Is your remark somehow supposed to distress me or are you simply trying to get into another verbal battle?

Here is what I said previously about my decision making. It would seem to relate that my statement about Ahmadinejad is, indeed, merely my opinion. If you were to read my post copied below, you would note I use the word "opinion" two times.

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise.

__________________________________________________________

Posted by chuckd @ 2010-03-31 15:03:26 (quote)

There you go again, Harcourt. You are assuming my claim about him being a loose cannon is..." presumably based on statements made by Western sources such as "he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map".

Wouldn't you think my decision making would be flawed if somebody came to me and told me, "You know, that fellow Harcourt is a real idiot. Did you read his post today on the XYZ thread?"

Now, if I answered in the affirmative and agreed that you are, indeed a real idiot based on only that one post, would it not seem that I was totally unfair in my judgement and really not thorough in my decision making?

However, if I answered, "Yes, I have read the body of his work and I agree with you that he is a real idiot", then it would seem I had been deductive in my reasoning and I had made a responsible decision based on all the facts at my disposal.

I try to make my decisions based on the best available information at hand and hardly have made my decision that Ahmadinejad is a "loose cannon" based on the one quote you have cited. My decision is based on the body of work I have seen coming from him, much as my OPINION of you is based on your entire body of work and not merely one post.

This post and reference to you should not be taken as any admission or OPINION from me that you are, in fact, a real idiot. I have used this example for instructional purposes only.

_____________________________________________________

PS: The word "opinion" changed to caps on this copy. They were not in caps on the original.

No chuck, I'm not trying to distress you at all. I'm not being belligerant at all, and not trying to get into a verbal battle again. Not at all.

I don't blame you for having a pessimistic POV. If I really wanted to just snipe, I think it would be obvious.

Lets look at what is on the table: Some people declared Ahmadinejad a threat, citing his "wipe Israel off the map" speech. The interpreted import of that speech has been discredited fairly credibly.....but it still remains the only citation of the man's instability. Thus, any further assertions that Ahmadinejad needs to be dealt with, should have reasoning.

If I proffer an OPINION that he is a saint, I think, in fairness to this forum (not to mention for crediblity of my argument), that I should offer some reason for my opinion.

For the record, I never made the claim you were being belligerent at all. Yet you, again, have made another presumption which is wrong. Where have I ever said I am pessimistic?

Also for the record, I posted these two additional links in an earlier post about Ahmadinejad.

You earlier said you did not read my link. Do you even open them to find out the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

and another one:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post number 1505.

No chuck, I'm not trying to distress you at all. I'm not being belligerant at all, and not trying to get into a verbal battle again. Not at all.

I don't blame you for having a pessimistic POV. If I really wanted to just snipe, I think it would be obvious.

Lets look at what is on the table: Some people declared Ahmadinejad a threat, citing his "wipe Israel off the map" speech. The interpreted import of that speech has been discredited fairly credibly.....but it still remains the only citation of the man's instability. Thus, any further assertions that Ahmadinejad needs to be dealt with, should have reasoning.

If I proffer an OPINION that he is a saint, I think, in fairness to this forum (not to mention for crediblity of my argument), that I should offer some reason for my opinion.

For the record, I never made the claim you were being belligerent at all. Yet you, again, have made another presumption which is wrong. Where have I ever said I am pessimistic?

Also for the record, I posted these two additional links in an earlier post about Ahmadinejad.

You earlier said you did not read my link. Do you even open them to find out the subject matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

and another one:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post number 1505.

In asking if I was trying to distress you and trying to start another verbal battle, you are implying that I am being beligerant: Not a presumption, but a reasonable conclusion.

Having reached that conclusion, it can be further concluded that in thinking I am beligerant, you are being pessimistic. You don't have to claim pessimism, just show it, for the accusation to be made.

In answer to your question about your links; no I have not read any of your links since you posted one that was plainly biased and unbalanced as if it was an offer of evidence.

Mea culpa in that neglect of mine. I should be more open minded, and I will make a point to read your links, time permitting, in the future.

Again, you address me instead of the pertinant subject. I will respond to each "attack" (note inverted commas), thereby perpetuating the irrelevant to-and-froing..... ad infinitum.

In this latest episode, I made a non-beligerant post, to which you responded as if I had. And here we are again.

Your choice.

Iran and the bomb...

Watching al Jazeera English this morning the talking head ran through a long list of statements by various Western powers since 1991 claiming how close Iran was to having a nuclear weapon. "6 months away", "5 years away", etc and it still goes on 20 years later. Makes it difficult to trust they know what they are talking about.

But we don't need to invade Iran. The vast majority of people were born after the 1979 revolution. They don't hate America and the West. They will take care of business (I'manutjob & the Mullahs) themselves. We just have to be careful how we play our hand and be ready to offer support diplomatically or otherwise.

I watched that..."Empire" was the program and you quoted the host's summing up (although you neglected to mention that it was mainly US officials that made the unfulfilled predictions ). I thought Thomas Pickering a very intelligent man that I admire, and the chap from CSIS too. Hehe...it is because of that program that I agreed with you that the US and Israel are unlikely to invade Iran.

All 3 guests, and the host (an Iranian I believe?) seemed to concur on most things.

Also an oft-neglected fact was brought up in that program: that the US encouraged Iran to develop a nuclear capability!

And you have neglected to mention the other nations who made "unfulfilled predictions". Is there really any reason to say that America has been making these predicitons? Is there anyone here who doesn't know that already? Hard to miss it if you even casually watch international news. Since you watched the entire program (and I only caught the end), please enlighten us with the other countries who made these claims. I'll start you off with one...GERMANY. (10-1 says you do not give the list)

The same can be said about WMDs in Iraq. You, Alex, an everyone else love to point out the obvious - that the USA said that Saddam had them. You conveniently leave out that so did Russia, France, Germany, Jordan and dozens of other countries (including leaders in Saddam's own Revolutionary Guard). Yet you love to portray the USA and Bush as "lying" about it.

As for the USA encouraging Iran, I wonder if you knew that France encouraged Iraq? I'm sure you did, but what puropse would it serve you ever to mention it? Here's a pic of Saddam and his ally Jacques Chirac on a tour of a French nuclear facility in 1975.

I recall Germany mentioned in relation to one date. Most of the predictions were American. It is relevant to point it out because it is America making that same prediction today....if not in so many words, in inference.

As best as I recall, the list included only America and Germany.

It seems like I touched a nerve. I didn't mean to, hence the winks. I thought you'd be realistic and take it in stride. Never mind.

From my perspective, Bush and his administration knew full well the chances of WOMD existing in Iraq; Slim to none. WOMD were the only excuse that the international community would support. Chadors or gassed Kurds was not enough to get the electorate AND the international community behind the invasion. WOMD was a pretext in my view.