DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 18, 2008, 01:24:36 PM
-
Arab world fears an Iran war may be impending
August 18, 2008, 1:05 PM (GMT+02:00)
(http://debka.com/photos/s_5516.jpg)
DEBKAfile?s Middle East sources report that the Iranian satellite carrier space launch Sunday, Aug. 17, was prompted by a joint caution to Tehran from Saudi King Abdullah and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
After their meeting Saturday, the spokesman of the presidential palace in Cairo, Suleiman Awwad, said: Iran should not present on a silver platter the ?justifications and pretexts for those [US and Israel] who want to drag the region down a dangerous slope.?
This warning was interpreted by the London Arabic daily Al Quds as a warning to Tehran that an attack is impending by the US, some European nations and Israel.
The article recalled the fate of Saddam Hussein ?who didn't adequately refute claims over Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.?
Tehran immediately responded to the warning by launching the Safir satellite carrier into orbit, thereby exhibiting a ballistic missile capable of reaching outside the Middle East, as far as Britain and France, should they decide to join an American attack on Iran, as well as US military installations on that continent.
Our military sources report that the war scare in Cairo and Riyadh also infected Kuwait.
Last week, the small oil emirate placed its military on ?war alert,? to avoid being caught off-guard by a possible conflict in the region. On Saturday, Kuwait boosted its naval force in the Persian Gulf to ward off a possible Iranian reprisal against its oil installations if attacked.
The scare was fed by the impending arrival of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima in the Persian Gulf to reinforce the US strike forces in the region, as first revealed by DEBKAfile on August 11.
They are to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is patrolling the Arabian Sea opposite Iran, and the USS Peleliu, on beat in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This deployment would be the largest naval task force the US and its allies had massed in the region since the 1991 Gulf War.
A US Pentagon spokesman last week denied that these forces were gathering to impose a partial naval blockade on Iran, but declined to disclose their mission. The denial apparently failed to convince the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait.
http://debka.com/index1.php (http://debka.com/index1.php)
-
We see a lot of threats, mostly coming from the Israeli "news" service DEBKA and the governments of the dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Although I think the threats of war are pretty hollow by this point (the pathetic U.S.A. can't even protect its own puppets in Georgia and are running like rabbits from any real confrontation there, although talking tough as is their habit) we can always hope that there is someone in Washington stupid enough to launch the confrontation. This could turn out to be a disaster, not only for the warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv, but for their Egyptian and Saudi puppets as well, who could easily wind up being torn apart by their own people. As the Iranians strengthen their grip on Lebanon, they should be able to see the advantage of stron underground movements inside the American puppet states waiting for the next big surge of anti-American, anti-government protests that a new war could touch off.
-
As the Iranians strengthen their grip on Lebanon, they should be able to see the advantage of stron underground movements inside the American puppet states waiting for the next big surge of anti-American, anti-government protests that a new war could touch off.
So you see these movements as catspaws of larger and wealthyer countrys , not any native effort?
-
<<So you see these movements as catspaws of larger and wealthyer countrys , not any native effort?>>
They're hybrids - - homegrown talent, foreign funding. Kinda like the Bay of Pigs mercenaries or the Afghan and Iraqi "armies."
-
<<So you see these movements as catspaws of larger and wealthyer countrys , not any native effort?>>
They're hybrids - - homegrown talent, foreign funding. Kinda like the Bay of Pigs mercenaries or the Afghan and Iraqi "armies."
Did the bay of Pigs incident include mercinarys?
I didn't know that.
-
<<Did the bay of Pigs incident include mercinarys?
<<I didn't know that.>>
It was all Cuban exiles but bought and paid for by the CIA. Fidel called them mercenaries because they served the U.S.A. at the expense of the Cuban people. This was preparatory to having them all shot, which of course he abandoned in favour of the idea of trading them in for medicines and drugs that the American boycott was preventing from reaching Cuba.
-
<<Did the bay of Pigs incident include mercinarys?
<<I didn't know that.>>
It was all Cuban exiles but bought and paid for by the CIA. Fidel called them mercenaries because they served the U.S.A. at the expense of the Cuban people. This was preparatory to having them all shot, which of course he abandoned in favour of the idea of trading them in for medicines and drugs that the American boycott was preventing from reaching Cuba.
This definition would also cover the Volenteers of China that rescued Communism in North Korea , which I don't really beleive.
So were all or most of them returned to the US? A lot of them must still be around.
-
<<This definition [mercenary]would also cover the Volenteers of China that rescued Communism in North Korea , which I don't really beleive.>>
No, a mercenary fights for a paycheque, a volunteer volunteers to fight for nothing.
<<So were all or most of them returned to the US? >>
The mercs of the Bay of Pigs? They were ALL returned. I
<<A lot of them must still be around.>>
If you're lucky, they've all died of AIDS.
-
<<This definition [mercenary]would also cover the Volenteers of China that rescued Communism in North Korea , which I don't really beleive.>>
No, a mercenary fights for a paycheque, a volunteer volunteers to fight for nothing.
<<So were all or most of them returned to the US? >>
The mercs of the Bay of Pigs? They were ALL returned. I
<<A lot of them must still be around.>>
If you're lucky, they've all died of AIDS.
I think it unfair to call them mercinarys , unless you know they were getting a lot of pay , which they weren't were they?
Cuba is a very unlucky country , it seems as if freedom eludes them no matter that they have worked very hard to acheive it for more than an hundred years.
If Kennedy had managed the Bay of Pigs invasion better he might not have had a missle crisis to deal with later , as I understand it Fidel Castro was so eager for the project that he didn't care if it killed every Cuban in Cuba. I don't think a platform like that would get you elected in the US.
-
<<I think it unfair to call them mercinarys , unless you know they were getting a lot of pay , which they weren't were they?>>
From what I recall reading about their pay, they all do very well. Much better pay than the GI's they replace.
<<Cuba is a very unlucky country , it seems as if freedom eludes them no matter that they have worked very hard to acheive it for more than an hundred years.>>
Cuba is blessed with the finest political leader in the world today, Fidel Castro. Cuba suffered under terrible dictators kept in power by the direct influence of the U.S.A. until Fidel led the Cuban Revolution to a stunning triumph over Nixon's buddy and the Dulles brothers' favourite, Fulgencio Batista. Since then they've lived free of foreign dominance and they intend to keep it that way. This irritates the U.S.A. something terrible but there isn't a God-damn thing they can do about it. Cuba is a great country and I hope one day you will visit it and see for yourself. If your government ever dares to let the ordinary American see for himself what Cuba really is all about.
<<If Kennedy had managed the Bay of Pigs invasion better he might not have had a missle crisis to deal with later , as I understand it Fidel Castro was so eager for the project that he didn't care if it killed every Cuban in Cuba. I don't think a platform like that would get you elected in the US.>>
Kennedy and Ike before him were lied to by the Cuban exiles and their CIA handlers, who assured him the Cuban people would "rise up" when the invasion began. They "rose up" alright - - against the invaders. JFK handled the invasion exactly right - - he called off the promised air strike and abandoned the project once it became apparent that it was based on the lie of popular support in Cuba. Hotel busboys became heroes on that day - - they grabbed rifles and shot down the invaders on the beaches, then pursued them into the jungles and swamps and killed more of them there.
-
Since then they've lived free of foreign dominance and they intend to keep it that way. This irritates the U.S.A. something terrible but there isn't a God-damn thing they can do about it. Cuba is a great country and I hope one day you will visit it and see for yourself. If your government ever dares to let the ordinary American see for himself what Cuba really is all about.
Tell me again how you feel about Former Soviet Republic and former Czarist conquest Georgia?
-
<<Tell me again how you feel about Former Soviet Republic and former Czarist conquest Georgia?>>
Sure. They're not gonna be allowed to put hostile military bases up right next door to Russia.
Tell me again how you feel about Soviet nukes in Cuba.
-
<<Tell me again how you feel about Former Soviet Republic and former Czarist conquest Georgia?>>
Sure. They're not gonna be allowed to put hostile military bases up right next door to Russia.
Tell me again how you feel about Soviet nukes in Cuba.
We allowed the Monroe doctrine to lapse.
-
<<We allowed the Monroe doctrine to lapse.>>
Well, that's too bad. Maybe they allowed the Stalin Doctrine to lapse, but it looks to me like it's back in business at last.
-
<<We allowed the Monroe doctrine to lapse.>>
Well, that's too bad. Maybe they allowed the Stalin Doctrine to lapse, but it looks to me like it's back in business at last.
Between Monroe and Stalin which doctrine is better needed?
-
<<Between Monroe and Stalin which doctrine is better needed?>>
I dunno, between Al Capone and Vito Genovese, who needed guns and bullets more?
Actually, I can give a much better answer: the Stalin doctrine, obviously. The U.S.S.R. was invaded from the West twice in the past 90 years, once during the Russian Civil War, by troops from Britain, the U.S., France, Poland, the Czech Legion and Canada (and probably others) and once during WWII by troops from Germany, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Slovakia and probably a few others I left out. How many times was the U.S. invaded in the last 90 years and by how many countries?
-
<<Between Monroe and Stalin which doctrine is better needed?>>
I dunno, between Al Capone and Vito Genovese, who needed guns and bullets more?
Actually, I can give a much better answer: the Stalin doctrine, obviously. The U.S.S.R. was invaded from the West twice in the past 90 years, once during the Russian Civil War, by troops from Britain, the U.S., France, Poland, the Czech Legion and Canada (and probably others) and once during WWII by troops from Germany, Romania, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Croatia, Slovakia and probably a few others I left out. How many times was the U.S. invaded in the last 90 years and by how many countries?
The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.
The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.
-
<<The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.>>
Ha! I very much beg to differ. The Monroe Doctrine was all about keeping the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande very much in America's grip. There was plenty of colonization and invasion in the Americas, the lion's share of it being done by the U.S.A. There was also some protective aspects to it - - they did not want potentially hostile European powers camping out on their doorstep or in their backyard.
<<The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.>>
It's actually a legitimate reaction to American attempts at encirclement. One has only to compare, since 1945, the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.A. with the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.S.R. in the same period.
-
<<The Monroe Doctrine was not about the United States , it was an anti imperialist move , forbidding colonisation and invasion in the Americas.>>
Ha! I very much beg to differ. The Monroe Doctrine was all about keeping the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande very much in America's grip. There was plenty of colonization and invasion in the Americas, the lion's share of it being done by the U.S.A. There was also some protective aspects to it - - they did not want potentially hostile European powers camping out on their doorstep or in their backyard.
<<The Brezhnev doctrine is pretty much the opposite , what the Empire takes , it keeps.>>
It's actually a legitimate reaction to American attempts at encirclement. One has only to compare, since 1945, the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.A. with the number of countries invaded and devastated by the U.S.S.R. in the same period.
President Monroe did not have a grip on any foreighn country , he simply thought Imperialism was disassterous and dangerous.
The Monroe Doctrine did nothing to protect governments from their own people .
The Bresnev doctrine was not concerned with what the people of a country might want , it was simply a policy of continual expantion of Hegemony around the evil empire.
Do you think it a miricle that "containment " worked so well when fully half the worlds population was under Governments at least nominally Communist? What kind of "containment is half of the planet?
What made Containment a success is the seeds of self destruction that are impossible to remove from communist ideology.
-
<<Do you think it a miricle that "containment " worked so well when fully half the worlds population was under Governments at least nominally Communist? What kind of "containment is half of the planet?>>
"Containment" is really a misnomer. They called it "containment" but it was really a policy of encirclement. The ruling classes of the U.S. and Great Britain and their allies saw the U.S.S.R. as a threat to their wealth and their grip on the countries they ruled under a sham "democracy" so they projected a fictitious "expansionist" policy on the U.S.S.R. and encircled it in the name of "containing" it, ultimately with the goal of launching yet another attack on it at some future point in time.
It's not a "miracle" at all that it worked - - it worked because the so-called Communist "leaders" of the U.S.S.R. became soft and flabby, unwilling to continue the struggle to build socialism or to aid the spread of socialist and communist parties in the West. Understandably, part of the weakening was due to fear of what was originally a U.S. nuclear monopoly, but with the future of mankind at stake, that fear should have taken a back-seat to resolute determination on behalf of the workers and peasants of the world to fight on to the final victory. But another part of the problem was the internal contradictions within any socialist state - - it would be hard to lead mankind into a nuclear exchange for a better system of government to emerge, when one can't be sure if the internal flaws in the system are deadly or not. I think maybe by that time the communist leaders themselves were starting to see problems in the system that might be un-fixable.