Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The Up and Coming American-Iranian war: Holy or Natural?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Up and Coming American-Iranian war: Holy or Natural?

    Mr. Moorcock,

    Do you have any predictions for this new war we may be heading for? More of the same? Can we predict a time table for North Korea? Five years? Or will the Coalition of the Willing be expanding the Empire wider in the current region?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4181325.stm

  • #2
    Given the failures in Iraq and the stretching of American troops needed to deal with that debacle, I think America would have to be even dumber than she has been to embark on any further adventures. Iran, for instance, is a far more sophisticated country with a relatively popular government, which would offer far greater resistance than Iraq. Equally,
    North Korea, especially if she has developed nukes, would present another stronger enemy. Americans aren't very good at colonial wars and with luck the lunatics around the White House are beginning to learn this lesson, no matter what their rhetoric. Should they embark on further adventures I predict an impoverishment of America from which the country is unlikely to recover. There are already rivals waiting in the wings. America might rapidly discover that she was having to negotiate herself out of serious trouble and give up far more power if she pursued
    the logic which has got her bogged down more than once. If she began to threaten nuclear war, then I suspect we'd become far closer to the end of the world, which perhaps some of those loony Christians are hoping for. If so, I suppose, we'd deserve all we got. I suspect, however, that there are forces of sanity within the military, for instance, which wouldn't allow Bush to make any more silly decisions.

    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
    The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
    Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
    The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
    Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheAdlerian
      Back when I was in high school and four year college there was a lot of concern that there was going to be some kind of war with Russia. To those of us that were young at the time, things seemed pretty depressing as the thought of nuclear war was over our heads. This caused a lot of depression and lack of motivation.

      Anyway, to beat this out I put my thinking cap on and started to work out what I thought would save the day. Then I saw Gorbachev come on the scene. During one of his visits I recall that he jumped out of his car and started shaking peoples’ hands. This was totally bizarre and rather sweet behavior. People did not know what he was getting at. Then, I saw that he and his wife were shopping in Paris and his wife had on a mink coat. It hit me. Greed would save the day! The desire to stay alive and see your wife happy was more important than blowing up the world over an economic argument.

      It’s my hope that the mid-east power players are motivated to keep themselves alive to enjoy the fruits of their position. However, if they are serious in their religious convictions I think that their nuclear potential is kind of scary. If they are using the negative aspects of their religion to persuade people to go on suicide missions to further their own political power (making them look like a David against a Goliath) then I am also scared. This implies that the greater the act of terrorism then the more fame the person receives from the act. This seems like a great political strategy to me and it scares me.

      If you think about it, a nuclear device could be triggered in a variety of countries and it would be almost impossible to react to it, as responsibility would not seem to lie with any specific country. So, it seems pretty smart to me to try and stop any of those countries from getting or developing nuclear arms.

      However, if the people that are running those countries are just cynical people using a belief system to govern their people, then there would not be a lot to worry about, so it would be a bad move to invade them.

      Anyway, I tend to think that action will be on hold due to the exhausting mess that Iraq has become. I think that the result and aftermath of the elections will determine the next move.
      I think you very much suffer from a misconception. Don't you think that in the light of the intrusion of US special units in a clandestine operation that the Iranians have a reason to feel threatened? The question is very much who is seen as the aggressor in that hemisphere?
      And surely after the current US government lied to the whole world in the WMD issue and started a so-called "pre-emptive" war, what can good can the Iranians expect now? While I don't overly trust the Iran it is the brinkmanship and cynism of the US government that endangers us all!
      Next, why do you take it for granted that the world accepts certain nations to have the bomb while others shouldn't? Why should a country that is ultimately prepared to back its economical interests by brutal force as displayed in by interventions in Latin America and in both Gulf wars be trusted? Tell me, or better the Irians, a sound reason why to trust America enough that she should have the bomb and them not?
      Google ergo sum

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        If Belgium suddenly developed the antigravity flying saucer equipped with a death ray and an invulnerable shell I would not trust them to wield this power responsibly. Perhaps this is much like America in that it is an over powered nation that needs watching. However, don’t think that that is the case at this time, although in part it is always the case.

        I do not think that America is really the rapacious threat that it is made out to be. Europe would be great to invade. It has a wealth of stuff to take and would make a great addition to the US. I doubt that it would give much of a fight and would add a great tax base for the US. Certainly the EU presents a potential threat to our economy, so why not pull a preemptive strike?
        It already largely belongs to the US, you see. No need to invade what you have already ...
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        This will never happen though because Europe is composed of stable nations that seem to operate on very practical Earthly principles.
        Otherwise we'd be in for trouble, eh? The mighty punishing Bushiviks who have God on their side would give the unruly boys a spanking, I suppose?
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        Much of the mid-east appears to be ruled by theocrats and warrior types that adhere to some pretty bigoted principles.
        Yes, kept firmly in place like the Saudis by American support ...
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        If my history is correct, this system existed before America was even created. So, I really cannot see how we were a threat first. Perhaps, we are the latest to reawaken to their threat.
        They were more a threat to eachother before "the West", including the US armed them all and instructed them in the use of our weapons - and our cynism. It is not so much a question who threatened whom first a couple of centuries ago, or decades, but who is seen as the obvious aggressor NOW.
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        Anyway, I’m not for invading them unless there is some pretty strong indication that they are motivated to act on some of their more heinous cultural aspects.
        What gives YOU or the US for that matter to decide an invasion of a sovereign country?!!! This is purist colonial arrogance!
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        Personally, I predict that the next nuclear bomb to be detonated will be in Israel. From a Muslim perspective that country presents as much of a justification towards nuclear action as Japan did for us.
        Maybe, but Japan wasn't justified... just those who dropped the bomb didn't realise then what the let loose. And I hope you're wrong, of course.
        Originally posted by TheAdlerian
        As you know from my other posts I am extremely skeptical of the Muslim culture (and mid-eastern culture in general) and its current emphasis on fundamentalism and lack of education for its population. If followed any type of injustice is possible.
        As you know from my previous posts I am just as sceptical of Bushovik fundamentalism and fanatism, ... any injustice is possible ... see Guantanamo. They are nearly desperate to prove how right bin Laden is when he denounces the West of being rotten, unreliable, decadent and brutal.
        Google ergo sum

        Comment


        • #5
          I think another factor we have to put into the equation is endemic American racism. I think we've seen it displayed in Iraq (and there are many reports of American soldiers making overtly racist remarks about and to Iraquis). I'm reminded more of Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia than anything else. Reactionary government broadcasting 'wars' on this and that and manufacturing reasons to invade weaker, brown-skinned people. Many Europeans are now wary of America because of her rhetoric, Bush's impatience with traditional diplomacy and astonishing self-deception. Nobody ever described the French, for instance, as naturally any more virtuous than the Americans, but the French are realists. The Americans have become dangerous since their version of 'democracy' has become linked to their version of 'god' and 'righteousness'. Happily, many Americans are as worried about this as Europeans, so I still rely on the inherent good sense of the US not to let the Bushoviks take things any further down the road of self-destruction. The Bushoviks mock G.Bush snr's 'realism', but I suspect it is that realism which still dominates thinking in the Pentagon and in other Washington institutions. Not only are Bushoviks unrealistic, their feet are currently about a mile off the ground. I suspect that the American people won't let them fly much higher. Of course, that could be my own unrealistic idealism talking... :)

          Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
          The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
          Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


          Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
          The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
          Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

          Comment


          • #6
            I wonder if the original post had anything to do with Seymour Hearsh's New Yorker story. Hearsh says his sources are impeccable, even though the Pentagon has denied sending secret operatives into Iran.

            Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
            The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
            Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


            Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
            The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
            Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

            Comment


            • #7
              Hersh is a bit of a muckraker, but he's honest and responsible, and his track record leads me
              to believe there's something to what he says. The terms in which the Pentagon denied his
              claims make for interesting reading; they didn't actually say he was "wrong" so much as say
              he got some of the details wrong. If the issue becomes hot, we can be certain that ardent
              denials and countercharges are on the way.

              Let's cross our fingers and hope that the U.S. government can avoid any further adventures
              in the Middle East for a while. One would think that some restraint would finally kick in, given
              the overextended nature of American military power. However, "restraint" doesn't appear
              to be a well-understood concept for certain people. :(

              LSN

              Comment


              • #8
                I suspect that the money men ultimately behind Bush would not permit an invasion of Iran, or any other country in that region. After all destroying the US economy is not in their interests.

                Moreover would the American people alllow it? - seeing as they see the latest Iraq casualty reports on daily network news. In addition, seeing as Iran is (relatively speaking) a much tougher prospect to beat than Iraq, you've got to ask why would any sane government even think it before the Iraq situation is firmly under control. Of course it wouldn't be the first time someone got so greedy they overstretched their resources.

                Someone needs to read up on their Sun Tzu, and realise that you can't fight a war on two fronts - as Hitler learned to his cost...
                Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have very little doubt that President Bush is bent on attacking Iran. Not that I have many sympathies for the ruling clique there, but it would be the next case of an illegal war without giving a f**k what the world and the UN thinks.
                  The November elections have sanctioned the Iraq adventure and the Bushoviks interpret this as the "go ahead" with the campaign against all supposed or real foes of America. As I have commented in earlier posts and other threads: Fundamentalists need eachother other, there is a lethal interdepency between them. The menace the current US government poses for the Iranians will only increase the internal support for their mullahs, you'll get just the opposite reaction as from pussy-footed Khaddafi. What would you do when someone openly announces that he might break into your house with force soon and has even climbed over the fence to test the strength of your defences? At least you buy a big Alsatian, but probably also a big bore Holland & Holland shotgun to teach the intruder a lesson. You also suppress domestic squabbles, because what you need now is a united household.
                  And it will once more "prove" that Osam.a bin Laden is right to attack America and her allies in "pre-emptive" strikes or retaliation.

                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...392687,00.html
                  Google ergo sum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Regarding LEtranger's comments. This so "hits the nail on the head". There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Drunk with power, these guys are out to do harm. Why would the guy with all the guns in the world ever listen to the money men? If I were the money men, I'd start thinking I was next.

                    What concerns me is that in desperation, we might see long range attacks against our European allies, simply because US soil can't be reached. Or more likely an infusion of terrorism into the urban areas a la IRA bombings. I don't know how realistic that particular worry is. My office mate from Norway says that it can't be and it won't happen. He's convinced the sanity of the world is stronger than this current madness. But I was convinced Iraq wouldn't happen. Lot's of governments for complex motivations got into it. Won't it be very easy to be "misled" yet again? I hope he is right.

                    To my American friends: it's time to start writing to our government letting them know that future action by our government in Iran won't be tolerated. Let them know now, before it's too late.
                    The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've made good on my suggestion. I emailed Sen. Patty Murray and asked her to pull support for the war and this impending action. I called my local congressman, because he doens't have email yet, and left a message for him. His website will have email soon, so I'll email him when that's available.

                      It's easy to contact these people. Just go to google and search for <statename> senate or that person's name if you know it. Same goes for state congress. I think the key here is to try our best to remain rational and assertive. After all, these people do work for you interests, or at least they should.

                      I sent a mail to Patty Murray that looked something like this:

                      I contacted you before and expressed my concern.
                      The result of you not heeding my concern was this.
                      I request you consider my new concern.
                      I may withdraw support to your administration if you ignore my concern.
                      Thank you.

                      If we all do this in unprecedented numbers, we can change things people. I hope each of you will contact your representatives.
                      The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The War Drums Beat On

                        Attack on Iran can't be ruled out: Bush

                        http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

                        This after the Pentagon issues an expected denial.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          They'll reap what they sow: Iran says it is prepared.
                          This will serve again be sold as proof that it is time to act. Incredible!

                          http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7355330

                          The mechanisms between fundamentalists of either side are functioning well.
                          And Osama is rolling on the floor with glee, because Uncle Sam is so stupid.
                          Google ergo sum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If the US does decide to attack Iran, it will likely do so without its 'coalition of the willing'. Many of the european governments who supported the Iraq war were so politically damaged by it that its unlikely they could conjure up even a fraction of that support. That would make it a very tough sell to congress and the American people at large. Unless of course they decide to do away with the niceties of democracy and go down the dictatorship route.

                            It just doesn't make sense - even the US doesn't have the resources and manpower to attack the entire middle east. Any defense department worth its salt employs analysts and statisticians to crack the numbers, assess the financial costs and likely casualties. Surely they would realise that starting a war in Iran is likely to cause a global scale conflict....?

                            Drunk with power is certainly true - but it seems the prevailing ideology behind the people at the top of the administration is purely to make money. You've got to remember that many of these people have big stakes in big business. Cheney of course awarded a big chunk of the Iraq reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, which he still maintains an interest in... I don't think there is any other ideological agenda being played out here. The national security rhetoric and the pandering to alleged christian moral values is purely to pacify a largely uninformed and apolitical electorate, and disguise the fact that Bush et al are just in it to make a buck.
                            Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

                            Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't post often, but as one of those who's been boots on the ground for both Iraq and Afghanistan, and going to be back in the Sandbox this year; I'd like to say that any action against Iran would have to be carefully considered. From the national interest of the America, a nuclear armed Persia controlled by the fundamental mullahs is an undesirable outcome. But any war will be air and naval assets with special operatives infiltrating. I can not see any other operational mode of conflict that would work effectively without to high of a cost. People seem to forget that we have already fought just such a war with Iran, the Kuwait tanker reflagging issue in 1987. This would just be something larger. The US is very realistic in planning a limitied campaign. The US might be lousy at colonial wars, but there is another kind of small wars: limited wars. And we've fought over a hundred of them over time. This all comes down to the political diplomacy on all the sides involved and each other's suspected reactions. If the US starts a limited war, it then falls into Iran's lap of whether to escalate by a full ground campaign against US forces and allied assets in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either way this could all just be a empty thunderclap or something much more dire and menacing for us all.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X