An attack on Iran is an economic attack on China

Please gripenator be careful of not confusing Iran with Afghanistan and Iraq since US occupied Afghanistan is obviously the worlds most dangerous narcotics state (93% of global heroin(e) production!) and US occupied Iraq is the failed state harboring thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Perhaps your next clever suggestion would be sending Blackwater contractors into Iran for an anti-drug campaign...:roll:

Violet Oboe said:

Please gripenator be careful of not confusing Iran with Afghanistan and Iraq since US occupied Afghanistan is obviously the worlds most dangerous narcotics state (93% of global heroine production!) and US occupied Iraq is the failed state harboring thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Perhaps your next clever suggestion would be sending Blackwater contractors into Iran for an anti-drug campaign...:roll:

Click to expand...

Exactly where are your statistics from?

I have to refrain from rolling on the ground in laughter at your description of 'heroin' as although minor spelling mistakes on forums are acceptable you make it sound like Afghanistan produces the world's largest supply of good female superheroes:roll:

Regarding terrorists I would take on those Al-Qaeda guys anyday-the IRGC's capabilities and intelligence networks makes Osama's group look like Barbie dolls in comparison.

Back to the topic at hand, the PRC can always diversify oil supplies and look to Sudan and Central Asia for additional supplies. Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan and the rest of the Stans bar Afghanistan are ideal petroleum and gas sources through overland routes (TransCaspian, TransAfghanistan lines), given the PRC's paranoia over a hypothetical Straits of Malacca blockade. I don't see what is the fuss in losing Iran's production capability for the PRC especially when there was a high risk probability that hostilities would break outin the very narrow Strait of Hormuz anyway, doubtless PRC technocrats would have taken that eventuality into account.

Just have a look at the latest ('07) UN narcotics report for the depressing details of exploding afghan poppy cultivation under ´friendly supervision´of US occupation troops. (Incidentally Mr. Karzai has to cultivate his drug/war lords in his cabinet too.)

Unfortunately you did not get my subtle francophonic allusion (heroin(e)) but without a ´french connection´the deadly endproduct would not reach american shores...:coffee:

Hello gripenator

although minor spelling mistakes on forums are acceptable

Click to expand...

On this forum, where many members do not speak English as a first language, comments on the quality of members English is viewed as an infraction and so I must ask you not to make any such comment or allusion again

the PRC can always diversify oil supplies and look to Sudan and Central Asia for additional supplies.

Click to expand...

The deals between PRC and Iran are bought and paid for, who is to tell either of them that these deals cannot stand?

It sounds like a real thief's argument to tell someone after stealing their car that they can always buy another!

Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and the rest of the Stans bar Afghanistan are ideal petroleum and gas sources through overland routes (TransCaspian, TransAfghanistan lines), given the PRC's paranoia over a hypothetical Straits of Malacca blockade. I don't see what is the fuss in losing Iran's production capability for the PRC especially when there was a high risk probability that hostilities would break outin the very narrow Strait of Hormuz anyway, doubtless PRC technocrats would have taken that eventuality into account.

Click to expand...

The goal is to connect Iran to the Central Asian Pipelines for delivery to China through Kazakhstan and indeed via Pakistan and across the Tibet Plateau. A lot of work has been done already so some overland oil may be flowing already.

Hi Daveman

That would be me you're quoting, Finn McCool. Your point of transporting Chinese ground forces to Iran through Central Asia is moot though; since there will be no ground invasion of Iran, but only air and sea bombardment, what good would Chinese ground troops do in Iran? China certainly won't send their troops into Iran to combat American F-22s. So the bottom line is still, no carriers, no fighter jets, and no ground forces for China to send to Iran; what's China going to do, offer their mental support?

Click to expand...

Can you say there would be no ground conflict? can I? can the Pentagon? Well no, because it is not the decision of any of us alone.

Wars are unpredictable and borders just lines on a map and just because something may not be planned does not mean it cannot "just happen". After all why would Mr Bush go t the trouble as labelling the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists if ground action was impossible.

How realistic do you think it is to suppose that Iranian forces would be content to sit under bombs when enemy forces are just across the border and probably in range at the border!

A strong SCO deployment along the Iran/Iraq border could be an act of significant stabilisation and may be enough to avert any plans for action that America may have. If not, then it certainly gives the SCO various options for whatever would develop out of such a foolish and reckless Neocon adventure.

While an attack on Iran would be costly economically for China, & many other oil importing nations, there're some thinkings that another war will put further strain on the US diplomatically & financially of which China & other US rivals can take advantage in the long term.

Soon Iran will have the nukes there will finally be peace in the middle east, because foreign interest will be removed and the area might finally stabilize.

alwaysfresh said:

Soon Iran will have the nukes there will finally be peace in the middle east, because foreign interest will be removed and the area might finally stabilize.

Click to expand...

Well this is blatantly incorrect because Iran is heavily influenced by and partisan to Russia and China. As SampanViking reminded us, it will quite possibly join the SCO in coming years. In addition to this it can be argued that Iran is acting in the role of a foreign power in the Middle East, since it is Shiite so it does not share a religion with most Middle Easterners, does not speak Arabic and is attempting to make itself the dominant regional power.
Lastly, a nuclear Iran will if anything drive the Gulf States, Egypt and other Middle Eastern governments more into the arms of the US government out of fear. I also fail to see how a nuclear armed Iran will solve to problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (well there is one way but we don't even want to think about that).

And that's not to mention the fact that if Iran does develop the bomb, the US might attack it outright.

So no, a nuclear armed IRan is NOT good for stability, and although I understand your logic, it is fatally flawed.

Finn McCool said:

Well this is blatantly incorrect because Iran is heavily influenced by and partisan to Russia and China. As SampanViking reminded us, it will quite possibly join the SCO in coming years. In addition to this it can be argued that Iran is acting in the role of a foreign power in the Middle East, since it is Shiite so it does not share a religion with most Middle Easterners, does not speak Arabic and is attempting to make itself the dominant regional power.
Lastly, a nuclear Iran will if anything drive the Gulf States, Egypt and other Middle Eastern governments more into the arms of the US government out of fear. I also fail to see how a nuclear armed Iran will solve to problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (well there is one way but we don't even want to think about that).

And that's not to mention the fact that if Iran does develop the bomb, the US might attack it outright.

So no, a nuclear armed IRan is NOT good for stability, and although I understand your logic, it is fatally flawed.

Click to expand...

Agreeded. Once Iran gets nukes, everyone within the region would want nukes to defend themselves. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, etc. And with how volatile the region can be, it can turn into a nuclear weapons exchange really quickly. And that can mean the whole place could become a giant glass parking lot. So stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons starts with Iran first and foremost.

The threat of several mideast states following Iran in ´going nuclear´is greatly exaggerated by some western analysts for obvious reasons. In reality states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are totally dependent on western economical, technological and military help and their respective elites are thoroughly corrupt, inept and scientifically illiterate.

(...not to say that Iran is a vanguard of scientific progress (though in the islamic world only Turkey (western model) and Malaysia (chinese minority does the ´work´!) have a similar tech level) but in comparison with the arab's dismal performance they are quite advanced.)

Only one scenario deserves some consideration:
Saudi Arabia could be tempted to conclude a ´nuclear defense pact´with Pakistan probably with tacit chinese backing.

Nevertheless this would be a high risk gamble for the Saudi's since they could easily be turned into puppets (...or perhaps being thrown down the well outrightly.) of their new Pakistani pretorians. Pakistan is a country with 170 million people and after Islamabad would get control in Riyadh they could colonize Saudi within two decades. Moreover the Saudi's are aware that Pakistan took their money during the 80's and 90's for financing her nuclear program but of course held their new ´babies´ under tight control with the exception of some ´tourist trips´for visiting Saudi officials (´Only looking not touching!´:rofl.

So for the time being the current Saudi leadership will stick with the ´west´but that does not mean that this time would last forever...

Violet Oboe said:

The threat of several mideast states following Iran in ´going nuclear´is greatly exaggerated by some western analysts for obvious reasons. In reality states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are totally dependent on western economical, technological and military help and their respective elites are thoroughly corrupt, inept and scientifically illiterate.

(...not to say that Iran is a vanguard of scientific progress (though in the islamic world only Turkey (western model) and Malaysia (chinese minority does the ´work´!) have a similar tech level) but in comparison with the arab's dismal performance they are quite advanced.)

Only one scenario deserves some consideration:
Saudi Arabia could be tempted to conclude a ´nuclear defense pact´with Pakistan probably with tacit chinese backing.

Nevertheless this would be a high risk gamble for the Saudi's since they could easily be turned into puppets (...or perhaps being thrown down the well outrightly.) of their new Pakistani pretorians. Pakistan is a country with 170 million people and after Islamabad would get control in Riyadh they could colonize Saudi within two decades. Moreover the Saudi's are aware that Pakistan took their money during the 80's and 90's for financing her nuclear program but of course held their new ´babies´ under tight control with the exception of some ´tourist trips´for visiting Saudi officials (´Only looking not touching!´:rofl.

So for the time being the current Saudi leadership will stick with the ´west´but that does not mean that this time would last forever...

Click to expand...

Wow some body has a wicked imagination.
1.saudies financed pakistans nukes
if they financed it why pakistans debt shows a big jump during the quest for nukes.
2.iranians are stupid unless they can get helped
Arent they doing the same as chinese reverse engeniering of russian weapons.
3-Arabia is totally dependent on west for her economics
If Arabia comes under the control of real saudies(not the westren installed puppets)total investment by middle east all togather is about 3500billion us dollars in west.
i wonder how much of an economic power usa be if that kind of money is withdrawn from her economy.point is simple its not the arabians that need help from west for her economic survival its the other way around.
4-Malaysia are dumb unless helped by (chinese minority!)
iam surpprised you didnt claim f22 was also build by chinese minority in usa.

5-The best one if islamabad gets control of saudies they will colonize arabia
didn't you just claim they financed Pakistan's nukes.if they did shouldn't Saudis have nuclear missiles in there armed forced they financed it after all.:roll: