Cheney is barking: what does this mean?

[Flames in 07]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.



I don't spend alot of time trying to figure out how to interpret government behavior, particularly outside Canada. But TI Crude at $90 when fundamentals would suggestion something like 50 to 65, and all this chatter makes me think this pi$$ing match may become Iran part II.

What I also wonder is what does Russia do if the US turns Iran into Iraq part II?

[Juventus3]

You're going to start hearing a lot about NATO again, for starters.

The US won't go into Iran without a UN backing. Russia won't go against the UN.

[Flames in 07]

But anything run through NATO by way of sactions or direct action would be veto'd by Russia, by definition making NATO irrelevant right?

[SportsJunky]

One country can veto?

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

One country can veto?

I don't really know how it works, but I think the countries on the security council can veto. Someone will probably correct that though.

edit - Wikipedia states that the five permanent members of the security council can veto. China, Russia, USA, France, and the UK. I don't think the 10 temporary members can veto resolutions.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I don't really know how it works, but I think the countries on the security council can veto. Someone will probably correct that though.

I think that is correct, of which Russia is a member, I think the other full timers are US, UK, France and China.

Then there are a few part timers, but the 5 above are the important ones ... how did France get into that club?

[if.away]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

But anything run through NATO by way of sactions or direct action would be veto'd by Russia, by definition making NATO irrelevant right?

Russia can't veto something that NATO does because Russia is not a part of NATO. Russia can veto anything passed through the UN security council because they are a member of the security council. Same with China. Both of these countries would veto any military action and possible sanctions against Iran because of their heavily vested interest in Iran, especially the Chinese.

The best the US can do is deliver a series of devastating air strikes against Iranian military installations and infrastructure to push their nuclear program several years back. There is a lot of tough talk coming out of Iran but most of it is unfounded. Syria has always been considered, and has considered themselves very well defended against aerial strikes. All that notion went out the window last month when the Israelis went deep into Syria and bombed what appeared to be some sort of nuclear installation. Iran is nowhere near as protected against airstrikes. War on the ground would be a totally different beast.

[Flames in 07]

sorry, NATO not equal UN, my bad.

frick, duh, I'm going to bed.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

how did France get into that club?

nukes, but you're right France shouldn't have a seat, swap them out for India, france isn't any more relavent then Canada.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

nukes, but you're right France shouldn't have a seat, swap them out for India, france isn't any more relavent then Canada.

The largest military in Europe, arguably the best airforce in Europe, the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a nuclear powered navy, is considered any more relevant than Canada? Wow. That deserves another...

[if.away]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The largest military in Europe, arguably the best airforce in Europe, the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a nuclear powered navy, is considered any more relevant than Canada? Wow. That deserves another...

Those are the 'official' reasons France is there. Reality is, they're there for their bread, cheese and wine. Oh, women too...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

nukes, but you're right France shouldn't have a seat, swap them out for India, france isn't any more relavent then Canada.

France could be a pretty big player on the world stage if they wanted too.

[TheDragon]

Blah blah blah. I've heard this same shpeel at least a hundred times since 9/11. Nothing's changed. If Cheney and Co. actually gave a rats ass about international stability and fighting terrorism, they wouldn't be arming Saudi Arabia.

Just more political posturing, I reckon. I highly doubt the US will go to war with Iran given their circumstances in the Middle East, anyway.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Blah blah blah. I've heard this same shpeel at least a hundred times since 9/11. Nothing's changed. If Cheney and Co. actually gave a rats ass about international stability and fighting terrorism, they wouldn't be arming Saudi Arabia.

Just more political posturing, I reckon. I highly doubt the US will go to war with Iran given their circumstances in the Middle East, anyway.

As unrealistic as the movie was, "The Kingdom" actually did a great job exposing the American public to the lies they hear from Fox news.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The largest military in Europe, arguably the best airforce in Europe, the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a nuclear powered navy, is considered any more relevant than Canada? Wow. That deserves another...

Agreed. Next to the U.S. and Russia, France is probably right there with England as a country that can most easily project power. They have a very well equipped and trained military like you said, which includes nukes, aircraft carriers, and several foreign bases around the world. It's not a coincidence that the U.S. tried very hard to get France on board for the Iraq invasion.

The idea of France as a weak and insignificant country militarily is over done.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Just more political posturing, I reckon. I highly doubt the US will go to war with Iran given their circumstances in the Middle East, anyway.

Since when have circumstances stopped Bush and Cheney. I'm a little afraid they'll pull off something real stupid or should I say even more strupid before they leave office.

[Claeren]

France has always acted as the balance power as well. China and Russia on one side and America and Britain on the other. They are the tie breaking country. Just socialist enought to see the Russian/China side of a debate and just capitalist enough to see the America/Britain side.

Also note that Britain was until recently in a lot of economic trouble and France was the darling nation. They have swapped spots but France should still not be underestimated.



Claeren.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Since when have circumstances stopped Bush and Cheney. I'm a little afraid they'll pull off something real stupid or should I say even more strupid before they leave office.

Maybe they will. I don't doubt that the ability to go after Iran is there, waiting on the table. It's just, I don't think they really have a leg to stand on if they do. It would pretty-well bankrupt their country, and destroy any last remainders of international clout the US once may or may not have had. Even though they're both psychotic, I think they're smart enough to know that Bush and Cheney have to live somewhere after their out of office.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

As unrealistic as the movie was, "The Kingdom" actually did a great job exposing the American public to the lies they hear from Fox news.

How do you know?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

France could be a pretty big player on the world stage if they wanted too.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of 'bigger' players.