NationStates Jolt Archive

Very interesting article from a British think tank (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf) that says the US and its allies have eliminated two of Iran's regional rivals; the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but had failed to replace either with 'coherent and
stable political structures'. Iran's influence is now spreading even beyond the Middle East to central Asia, Turkey and south Asia.

A damning indictment of the neo cons IMO

Very interesting article from a British think tank (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf) that says the US and its allies have eliminated two of Iran's regional rivals; the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but had failed to replace either with 'coherent and
stable political structures'. Iran's influence is now spreading even beyond the Middle East to central Asia, Turkey and south Asia.

A damning indictment of the neo cons IMO

I'm sorry could you of possibly missed the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers within a stone's throw of Iran?

I'm sorry could you of possibly missed the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers within a stone's throw of Iran?

thats twice tonight you have been in after me without bothering to read the article.

are you stalking me or just a troll?

You're not interesting enough to stalk. Just another brain-dead hippy who shows exactly what's wrong with the Democratic party.

You're not interesting enough to stalk. Just another brain-dead hippy who shows exactly what's wrong with the Democratic party.

im not american you mong.

You're not interesting enough to stalk. Just another brain-dead hippy who shows exactly what's wrong with the Democratic party.

There may be hundreds of thousands of US troops near Iran, but they are vust controlling two war-torn and unstable regions - Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran's military, whilst not as well-equipped or trained, has no such areas to tie them down. SR and the article made a valid point, which you ignored and just flamed him for no reason.

im not american you mong.
ignore Khadgar... he doesn't realize there aren't other ppl besides Americans on the intertubes and makes us look bad. :P

There may be hundreds of thousands of US troops near Iran, but they are vust controlling two war-torn and unstable regions - Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran's military, whilst not as well-equipped or trained, has no such areas to tie them down. SR and the article made a valid point, which you ignored and just flamed him for no reason.

Do you honestly think for even a fraction of a second we couldn't mobilize five or ten times the number of troops currently in Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran?

Iraq is of immense strategic importance to us, that's why we've been there for thirty years. Since Saddam wouldn't play ball anymore we went in there. Surely you don't buy into that WMD crap, it was to establish a military presence.

im not american you mong.

Immaterial. The democratic party presumably shares many of your views, especially the ones he finds particularly objectionable, therefore his statement is still valid.

ignore Khadgar... he doesn't realize there aren't other ppl besides Americans on the intertubes and makes us look bad. :P

1) He's bitching about neo-cons. A distinctly American term.
2) Blair is not a conservative. He's a liberal actually.

2) Blair is not a conservative. He's a liberal actually.

Moderate socialist, I would imagine, given his party.

Do you honestly think for even a fraction of a second we couldn't mobilize five or ten times the number of troops currently in Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran?
do you think Iraq would let us do this? I don't think it would...


Iraq is of immense strategic importance to us, that's why we've been there for thirty years. Since Saddam wouldn't play ball anymore we went in there. Surely you don't buy into that WMD crap, it was to establish a military presence.
How have we been there for 30 years? Besides attempting to influence matters from outside.. So if it was to establish a military presense, if the Iraqi gov't asks the US to leave, are you for or against that? (i'm saying if, but i think it will be a matter of when)

do you think Iraq would let us do this? I don't think it would...



How have we been there for 30 years? Besides attempting to influence matters from outside.. So if it was to establish a military presense, if the Iraqi gov't asks the US to leave, are you for or against that? (i'm saying if, but i think it will be a matter of when)

Saddam was our pet for years til we turned on him over Kuwait. Honestly I'm amazed we didn't invade then. We used him to keep Iran and by proxy the USSR busy. Read the history, it's quite stunning. We've been playing games in the area for decades.

2) Blair is not a conservative. He's a liberal actually.
Blair, by any British standard, is a conservative. Which, when you're talking about Tony Blair, is the only kind of standard that matters; unless you're willing to take him off our hands.

Blairs only politcal view is political correctness, he gives no straight anwers and never says anything that anyone could possibly disagree with. Much like the 3 major parties in the UK and their leaders.

Moderate socialist, I would imagine, given his party.
In Britain, the party you are a member of is not a fair reflection of the ideals you hold. It is well known in the UK that Blair does not like the Labour party.

Yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/marine.recall/index.html

Selective Service.

Not saying it would be wise, or politically advisable, but push come to shove it could be done.

Do you honestly think for even a fraction of a second we couldn't mobilize five or ten times the number of troops currently in Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran?Yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/marine.recall/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has authorized the U.S. Marine Corps to recall 2,500 troops to active duty because there are not enough volunteers returning for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, Marine commanders announced Tuesday.

1) He's bitching about neo-cons. A distinctly American term.
2) Blair is not a conservative. He's a liberal actually.
i didn't see the word "neo-con" in his first post... ... about #2, Bush is also a liberal. (just not in the sense most ppl think it means)

And i kinda agree... i think they have done a shitty job running the occupation.

Selective Service.

Not saying it would be wise, or politically advisable, but push come to shove it could be done.
How the hell did your quote of my post come before my post? :confused:

How the hell did your quote of my post come before my post? :confused:

I'm a frightening magical entity capable of warping space time. Which is why the original poster claims I don't read anything. From my perspective it's been days!

Do you honestly think for even a fraction of a second we couldn't mobilize five or ten times the number of troops currently in Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran?



:p :p :p

post of the month.

already overstretched with low moral and you reckon there can be a 90% increase in troop levels?

you are on a different planet son

In Britain, the party you are a member of is not a fair reflection of the ideals you hold. It is well known in the UK that Blair does not like the Labour party.

Right. Despite having been a member since university, and standing for sedgefield. Oh, and that investment in public services stuff.

Nope. He's a moderate socialist. You just don't like his foreign policy. Doesn't mean he's not a moderate socialist.

I'm a frightening magical entity capable of warping space time. Which is why the original poster claims I don't read anything. From my perspective it's been days!

so you posted the reply before the op?:p

bloody americans, always claiming others work for themselves

:p :p :p

post of the month.

already overstretched with low moral and you reckon there can be a 90% increase in troop levels?

you are on a different planet son

He must be counting on a draft

Selective Service.

Not saying it would be wise, or politically advisable, but push come to shove it could be done.
There are other considerations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html

He must be counting on a draft

The vacancies on the draft board were filled for a reason. I reckon it's been planned for a while as a worst case scenario option.

Right. Despite having been a member since university, and standing for sedgefield. Oh, and that investment in public services stuff.

Nope. He's a moderate socialist. You just don't like his foreign policy. Doesn't mean he's not a moderate socialist.
Privitisation of the NHS? Tuition fees for universities? Encouraging a massive immigration influx for cheap labour? Cozying up to big business for party funding? Throwing aside the trade unions? Selling seats in the house of Lords?

Blair's third way is revamped Thatcherism, and has been ever since his election.

Do you honestly think for even a fraction of a second we couldn't mobilize five or ten times the number of troops currently in Iraq and use it as a stepping stone into Iran?

Iraq is of immense strategic importance to us, that's why we've been there for thirty years. Since Saddam wouldn't play ball anymore we went in there. Surely you don't buy into that WMD crap, it was to establish a military presence.
Why dont you ask the troops about that mobilization idea? I can tell you, as I'm on Fort Jackson right now doing training with the 218th Infantry, that the regular Army soldiers are just about wore out. And the Reserves/National Guard are doing a lot more than they were ever intended to. We are stretched much thinner than we need to be aty this point, although someone unfamiliar with the troops wouldn't know it. Multiple combat tours in multiple locations is no joke. And the sight of your buddies bodies ravaged by IEDs is about as funny as a heart attack. You might want to remember that you probably dont know that smell.....



I know I advocate force much of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean an escalation in the number of mobilized troops. Just better usage.

Why dont you ask the troops about that mobilization idea? I can tell you, as I'm on Fort Jackson right now doing training with the 218th Infantry, that the regular Army soldiers are just about wore out. And the Reserves/National Guard are doing a lot more than they were ever intended to. We are stretched much thinner than we need to be aty this point, although someone unfamiliar with the troops wouldn't know it. Multiple combat tours in multiple locations is no joke. And the sight of your buddies bodies ravaged by IEDs is about as funny as a heart attack. You might want to remember that you probably dont know that smell.....



I know I advocate force much of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean an escalation in the number of mobilized troops. Just better usage.

Bad thing about our current administration, those dumbasses couldn't plan a birthday party let alone a war. Didn't have nearly enough troops to start with.

Privitisation of the NHS? Tuition fees for universities? Encouraging a massive immigration influx for cheap labour? Cozying up to big business for party funding? Throwing aside the trade unions? Selling seats in the house of Lords?

Blair's third way is revamped Thatcherism, and has been ever since his election.

I didn't say he was good at it. Just that it's what he believes. Actually, tuition fees for universities can be viewed as quite socialist. (They are means tested are they not?).

Bad thing about our current administration, those dumbasses couldn't plan a birthday party let alone a war. Didn't have nearly enough troops to start with.
Which is exactly why having this administration in charge of anoter one is dangerous at best. The best thing that can happen now is for the Dems to get congress in November so we can have some good old fashioned American gridlock. The last thing I want to see in the next two years is for George Bush to be able to get anything done because whenever he does it's a disaster.

Which is exactly why having this administration in charge of anoter one is dangerous at best. The best thing that can happen now is for the Dems to get congress in November so we can have some good old fashioned American gridlock. The last thing I want to see in the next two years is for George Bush to be able to get anything done because whenever he does it's a disaster.

It works so vastly much better when there is a gridlock, always has. That way they're held accountable when they do something stupid. I promise you if Bush was a democrat the republican congress would of had his ass impeached by now.

Which is exactly why having this administration in charge of anoter one is dangerous at best. The best thing that can happen now is for the Dems to get congress in November so we can have some good old fashioned American gridlock. The last thing I want to see in the next two years is for George Bush to be able to get anything done because whenever he does it's a disaster.

I don't think it matters who wins in november. It will be BAU.

Bad thing about our current administration, those dumbasses couldn't plan a birthday party let alone a war. Didn't have nearly enough troops to start with.
I'm on a military computer, and cannot agree with that statement since Bush is my Commander in Chief and all this is logged.

However, civilians planning military strategy and tactics is always a bad idea. Officers doing the planning in general is not much better. Use the NCOs, they know their stuff.

Very interesting article from a British think tank (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf) that says the US and its allies have eliminated two of Iran's regional rivals; the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but had failed to replace either with 'coherent and
stable political structures'. Iran's influence is now spreading even beyond the Middle East to central Asia, Turkey and south Asia.

A damning indictment of the neo cons IMO

to suggest the taliban a meanintful regional rival of Iran is a farse. The Taliban did not even exact full control over the population in their own boarders, let alone pose any type of regional effect on Iran. Iraq being quite a different story.. but while we removed Iraq as a rival.. we also opened up a significant power vacume. If Iraq were to collapse into civil war.. being that Iran boarders Iraq, it would be Iran who would feel the first flows of chaos as refugees stream over their boarder.

As well I see it, removing Iraq only further strengthened other counter rivals such as Israel, how now can exact even more force with threats from one less nation. I think that "think tank" took on a rather bias viewpoint without fully exploring the regional complexities... dont you ?

It works so vastly much better when there is a gridlock, always has. That way they're held accountable when they do something stupid. I promise you if Bush was a democrat the republican congress would of had his ass impeached by now.

if that's the case... mebbe the dem's will impeach him when they win congress. (hopes so)

if that's the case... mebbe the dem's will impeach him when they win congress. (hopes so)

One could dream. I however hold no hopes for that. Democrats have proven remarkably spineless lately.

1) He's bitching about neo-cons. A distinctly American term.
2) Blair is not a conservative. He's a liberal actually.

Liberal? Don't make me laugh.

Blair is a "Democratic Socialist", apparently, but with some right-ish ideas.

If you're going to discuss British politics, use British terms. Blair is not a liberal.

if that's the case... mebbe the dem's will impeach him when they win congress. (hopes so)

Nope. Because they are complicit. They'll make a big noise about it, of course, but at the end of the day nothing will happen. That's what happens when you system is set up where politicians investigate themselves.

I mean, if the libertarians - or the socialists - were elected, people with a clean slate so to speak, then I could see it. But not the democrats. Senior democrats are ass deep into this too.

Liberal? Don't make me laugh.

Blair is a "Democratic Socialist", apparently, but with some right-ish ideas.

If you're going to discuss British politics, use British terms. Blair is not a liberal.

I've been through this. (Though I said moderate socialist).

I've been through this. (Though I said moderate socialist).

You expect people to read a thread instead of jumping to reply to the first post they find objectionable?

You must have forgotten....you're on NSG. :p

You expect people to read a thread instead of jumping to reply to the first post they find objectionable?

You must have forgotten....you're on NSG. :p

Ooops, my bad. :p

to suggest the taliban a meanintful regional rival of Iran is a farse. The Taliban did not even exact full control over the population in their own boarders, let alone pose any type of regional effect on Iran. Iraq being quite a different story.. but while we removed Iraq as a rival.. we also opened up a significant power vacume. If Iraq were to collapse into civil war.. being that Iran boarders Iraq, it would be Iran who would feel the first flows of chaos as refugees stream over their boarder.

As well I see it, removing Iraq only further strengthened other counter rivals such as Israel, how now can exact even more force with threats from one less nation. I think that "think tank" took on a rather bias viewpoint without fully exploring the regional complexities... dont you ?

It doesn't matter if the Taliban was unable to exercise its power across the whole of Afganistan, the fact is that it did exercise power on a scale significant enough to rival Iran, especially regarding the ideological influence it had.

It is in fact your view that fails to explore the regional complexities, and it is very arrogant to accuse a 62-page report from one of the UK's most prestigious think tanks as being cheap bias.

Thanx

This is a good article; I am half way and have not yet found any obvious errors…

They paint a decent picture of the Iranian political landscape and society.

As I mentioned before, the Iranian state is no more saintly that other governments but it is not evil either; some striking quotes from the rapport

“Iranian regional foreign policy, which is often portrayed as mischievous and destabilizing, is in fact remarkably pragmatic on the whole and generally aims to avoid major upheaval or confrontation.” (p. 6)

“Since 2001, and the US-led military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has had good reason to be concerned about political instability in its neighbourhood. Too often, however, Western preoccupations with Iran’s foreign policy intentions fail to recognize Iran’s own security needs. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan to the east and the continuing insurgencies in Iraq to the west mean there is continued violence and uncertainty on Iran’s borders.” (p.8)

“The Iranian government is particularly aggrieved that its role in taking in and later repatriating large numbers of Afghan refugees since 2001–2 has been neither acknowledged nor rewarded by the US and its allies.” (p.8)

“Despite the prominence of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian political system does not give complete political control to the presidency. Following in the footsteps of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is clearly at the very top of the domestic power structure, but the actual exercising of power is less certain. In many ways, the Iranian regime reflects a constant jockeying for influence between different interest groups, personalities and institutions.” (p.10)