Is Israel building up for a strike againt Iranian nuclear facilities.

[Harleyman]

I wasn't trying to put anybody down.

 

The internet often has inaccurate information and Newspaper articles - in my (albeit jaundiced) view are usually inaccurate.

 

I've no idea why the author of the Guardian article felt that Ascension Island would be of some use if the Americans wanted to carry out attacks on Iran - unless, perhaps, he's not too sure where Iran is.

 

As you said in an earlier post, Harleyman, there does appear to be an increase in isolationism in the US. The US does have treaties with Israel and if Israel was attacked, I've no doubt the US would retaliate in support of those agreements, but if Israel was the aggressor, the US might be somewhat reluctant to get involved.

 

In all the election gibberish I've heard (and I must admit, I ignore most of it) I've heard little or no comment or argument about foreign policy. - Most people seem to be more interested in what the next president's domestic policies will be.

 

It seems that many people think: "We've been involved in foreign wars continuously for over 10 years now. Whatever we do, we're wrong. Perhaps it's time we left the rest of the World to sort out their own policing." I can understand that attitude but I do hope (and expect) that the US will not become markedly isolationist (I can't see a reversion to anything like pre WWll foreign policy - which is just as well, perhaps.)

 

"Go away! - We don't want you interfering in our politics" is one thing (and they just might do it), but "Go away! - We don't want you interfering in our politics, but please leave your money behind and send us some more next week" is unlikely to get a positive response.

 

If Iran was to have a 'hissy fit' - for whatever reason - and was to decide not to export any oil to the US, I don't suppose too many people would be worried. - Particularly as the US doesn't import any oil from Iran. The Saudi's can export oil through the Red Sea, so any attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz wouldn't be as bad as some might think.

 

If Iran was to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, should the US say: "It's not our problem. We do not rely on oil coming through the straits. Let those who need that oil clear the blockade?"

 

If the Iranians did manage to halt much of the flow of oil to the Western World Europe and nobody did anything about it and World Trade was damaged severely, then - although the US would suffer badly - the US could feed itself, could provide most of what it needs from its own resources and could probably buy the rest from its neigbours to the North and to the South and from Eastern countries.

It's unlikely to happen. There are embargoes in place against Iran and although they're not in the news every week, they may well be hurting the economy of that country. Eventually, perhaps, the Iranians will decide they need a government which is prepared to work with the rest of the world.

 

Indeed and in a case like that Canada and Venezuela would be more than happy to increase production to make up the shortage from the middle east.

 

Chavez might like to act the friend of any enemy of the US but when it comes to "the money" that's when reality sets in and diplomatic posturing takes a hike.

 

I dont believe for a moment that Romney would contemplate attacking Iran. He knows as well as Obama that the trade restrictions are working even if taking time to make the Iranians come to their senses.

Another reason for not attacking is the internal unrest in the country. Dissidents have been jailed and demonstations suppressed but that wont make the feelings of discontent go away. To attack Iran might only work to alienate the dissdent movement and we dont drive potential allies into the arms of a leader they despise and want to be rid of

[Rupert_Baehr]

It seems to me, Harleyman, that many things have changed in the US during the last 4 years.

 

There is more political polarisation in National politics and far less interest in International politics.

 

A good thing or a bad thing? - I don't know.

 

Americans do (IMO) deserve a President who will look after the interests of Americans.

 

If you - as an American citizen - get lucky (or unlucky ) enough to vote for a president who is supposed (or alleged) to 'rule the world' should you lose your right to elect a president who looks after the people at home?

 

I don't think so.

 

This is the first election since 1963 (AFAIK) in which American voters appear to be more interested in domestic politics than they are in having a 'world leader' as a president.

 

It's long past time (IMO) that Americans voted for a 'President of the United States' and were not expected to vote for a 'World Leader'.

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

Chavez might like to act the friend of any enemy of the US but when it comes to "the money" that's when reality sets in and diplomatic posturing takes a hike.

 

I suspect that Chavez knows which side of his bread is buttered. - He might be a plonker, but he's not a stupid plonker.

 

I dont believe for a moment that Romney would contemplate attacking Iran. He knows as well as Obama that the trade restrictions are working even if taking time to make the Iranians come to their senses.

 

I suspect that Romney (not a soldier, but understands that the 'hired help' are there because they are really good at their jobs) is more likely to listen to his highly-paid highly-experienced 'hired help' than does Obama, who is acutely aware that the military are there to serve the nation - and who doesn't listen to servants.

 

Another reason for not attacking is the internal unrest in the country. Dissidents have been jailed and demonstations suppressed but that wont make the feelings of discontent go away. To attack Iran might only work to alienate the dissdent movement and we dont drive potential allies into the arms of a leader they despise and want to be rid of

 

I heard that message - using almost exactly the same words - 5 years ago.

 

I'm an absolute cynic (a failing for which I make no apologies - I also suffer from enjoy a degree of 'OCD' )

 

I - like perhaps a number of other Europeans - fell into the trap of thinking that all Americans were incapable of subtle diplomacy (after all, the Brits eared the accolade 'Perfidious Albion' over many years.)

 

During the past some years, I have been privileged to observe some very competent, very skilled, highly-qualified and well motivated (do you need any more superlatives? ) ignorant Americans fooling the rest of the world.

 

America (and the US government) may have many enemies, but it has a number of friends, too.)

 

Good friends.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Those bloody Americans snuck in and made all sorts of friends in all sorts of countries when nobody was looking!

 

Sneaky sods!

 

(Then again, the people from those countries were amazingly friendly and put on some really good parties )

[callippo]

judging by some of the garbage written on thios thread, there seems to be this widespread belief that Iran has the ability to 'attack Israel'.

 

they can, but only by proxy. That's what Hizbullah is for. They have tens of thousands, possibly as many as 50,000 rockets capable of reaching Israel from Lebanon.

 

but Iran is well short of actual missiles with the range to reach Israel from Iran. It is believed they have less than a dozen.

[GrapeApe]

There's less doubt about that, than about Saddam's WMDs.

 

There's no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon but I don't suppose that will make any difference.

 

Israel will kill who ever it wants and the world will look the other way.

[Mecky]

By the look of the press today it appears that Cameron is gearing up for a strike on Iran.

 

He also condemmed attacked the Middle-eastern countries for their stance on human rights .... before trying to sell them $6bn worth of British arms.

[Anna Glypta]

.. before trying to sell them $6bn worth of British arms.

 

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Obelix]

I wasn't trying to put anybody down.

 

The internet often has inaccurate information and Newspaper articles - in my (albeit jaundiced) view are usually inaccurate.

 

I've no idea why the author of the Guardian article felt that Ascension Island would be of some use if the Americans wanted to carry out attacks on Iran - unless, perhaps, he's not too sure where Iran is.

 

...........

[Mecky]

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

I call it a hypocrite thing