The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

sabang

On face value that may make sense keda, but think of the number of trucks involved, plus the added manpower to remove an indigenous population that does not want to move. Logistically, it would involve more effort than the war.

keda

It would too, and we still haven't learned that the best protection against global panic being instilled at the whim of a bunch of peasants is to reduce our dependence on the stuff with serious effort into viable alternatives.

But in context of supply disruption rather than other repercussions which are obvious and do not need to be entered, measures would be installed and alternative sources of oil would be preempted as an integral part of any action that might result in Iranian oil being entirely removed from the supply line.

The speculators and BB would clean up as they did when the price lurched from $30 to $80, but then as 30 years before from $4 to $20 it would settle to an acceptable if higher band with the global economy, robust as it is, absorbing the impact.

The blessing in disguise, which I'm sure the OPEC bullyboys are well aware of and would rather not entertain, is that once the oil price reaches around $110 (was $80 6 years ago), it makes sound economic sense to pull out the stops and invest heavily for that world saving alternative.

keda

Could be, and I wouldn't agree the population would've put up more than token resistance but will address that later, but again consider the different times and expectations, the constraints of political correction had not yet been invented, the lowly arab of the 60s much like today were followers of vociferous leaders, the arab world had suffered a blow to their esteem, though as it turns out this was salvaged by an even more radical Islam and of course the leverage afforded by oil, but these came after the event.

Important too were the fears instilled by their own leaders from their hives of safety that the Israelis were preparing for wholesale slaughter, and this was a vital factor that Israel could have exploited to turn the Egypt/Jordan exodus dribble into a flood.

Thousands of trucks were available and these could have moved the greater part of the population, assuming compliance and of course myriad other variables.

DrB0b

Serbians can!

Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MOABs, shock-and-awe? It worked before so I guess it'll work again, oh wait......

stroller

I suppose the "PC nutters" with their strange ideas of how people should be treated or not, were focusing on those pesky Germans at the time. However, they insist the same standards should apply to all these days, and Israel has cashed in all its victim-bonus-vouchers already.
Too bad.

keda

I'm sure you were living in the future then as you believe you are now. I cannot say what they were focusing on, I thought it was many things and in particular the nasty djoos bashing your peaceloving mates in real time, but tx for the education, glad to learn they were also rounding up those pesky Germans, but thought they were tamed by then and not still cause for concern as some are now.

And sure, only the djoos cash in, never your buddies.

Go on then, you haven't asked in a few days if I've taken my medication.

keda

Btw we're trying to have a sensible discussion about serious issues, so please contribute and stop making a damn nuisance of yourself.

You're a mod, so try and fool our newbies into thinking you have the makings.


Darn, if I had the money I'd buy TD just to put you in with Jarvis for a couple of hours daily and twice on weekends.

raycarey

so then why do you continually distract from the issue at hand and turn it towards alleged anti-semitisim....

Milkman

Let's say the U.S. uses Stealth Bombers, which I presume they would.

There are only so many stealth bombers.

When the first explosions hit, anywhere in Iran, I assume there is a contingency plan for Iran to fire many, many, Shihab-3 rockets to U.S. targets, and Israel.

One Stealth bomber strike, cannot get them all quickly enough.

And intelligence on sites cannot be a 100%.

We now know this for sure, after Iraq.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

chinthee

The dynamics could be different this time if France is implicitly behind an attack. It may not be seen appropriate for Iran to attack Israel in response to a US-led attack. I expect Israel to distance itself from a coming US attack. To me, if we see this, it would signal an attack is imminent.

This could lead to more countries siding with the US in this case for a more definitive military operation.

keda

^^ True, but even if every missile could all be taken out simultaneously it wouldn't matter anyway, because his ICBMs would be launched in the form of a new and more potent jihad. He has and always will have the Islamic fanatics firmly on his side, and Muslims worldwide would in any case view it as an attack on their religion, with serious consequences.

Though it's difficult to imagine what could be worse and more awesome than humans eager to kill themselves for allah, I guess it's something like the same but on a far greater and more desperate scale.

Sure the nutjob knows it - as do our leaders, which makes the rhetoric that much more laughable.

Milkman

No, I honestly don't think so. Not at all.

Why?

Because Ahmadinejad (Iran) has publicly stated (yesterday) that it will fire 600+ Shihab-3 rockets at Israel. Maybe it's a bluff.

But from the rhetoric over the last 2 years, I think they are serious.

Israel can refrain and sit-back - but Israel will be attacked.

And....Israel will respond.


This is going to be a nasty mess if the U.S. launches a series of air strikes.

chinthee

^ well, that is a just another silly hostage taking approach. Iran threatens to target Israel if America attacks. Israel doesn't tell America when or if to attack. America will attack based on its own argument with Iran. Israel is a side show, as much as everybody wants to make it a central argument.

I think Israel knows the score, and probably accepts and is ready for it.

keda

First off, can you see France at the forefront of a military venture? Cmon...trying hard but can't see that at all.

If the US, France or even Fiji were to launch any form of direct attack against Iran, Islam would see Israel either as the instigator or the cause, because that's what they want to see.

Let's not forget we're talking about tens at very best but more likely hundreds of millions of ignorant and irrational people being led by the nose by intelligent and irrational leaders.

Countries siding with the US in any event are fairly constant as are those irrevocably against Israel, the only variable being whether the European fence campers might slither to join the US with token forces, or words, as in go get them we're right behind you, or into neutral as in don't look at me guv it were 'im.

chinthee

^ Yeah, I agree mostly, and Russia came out today against the French position. As usual, the US will take the lead, take the flak, and take the majority of the spoils at the end because everyone else are gutless appeasers.

stroller

Indeed, perhaps you could set an example and respond to comments without deliberatly misunderstanding and launching personal attacks?

raycarey

considering the failures in iraq and afghanistan, i suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that the bush white house is preparing for another war it has no chance of winning.

chinthee

There is no such thing as "winning" today in wars. It's all about controlling situations. In the case of Iran, it would be to stop or delay their nuclear programme. The costs will be increased terrorist threats against mostly America, and increased security and inconvenience for all of us.

The alternative would be a nuclear armed Iran. Apart from the nutjobs on this forum, who the hell would want that???