Results 11 to 20 of 35
-
Social Dementia
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 25,070
September 14th, 2012 12:21 PM #11Bale wala yung Libya.
Originally Posted by uls
China-Japan-Korea ang mas exciting...
-
Running on Empty...
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,339
September 14th, 2012 02:46 PM #12I can imagine both Georges sitting at their desks with a bottle of cognac, staring at a picture of Saddam and Bin Laden, reminiscing about the bad ol days. Originally Posted by uls
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
September 14th, 2012 02:54 PM #13pitik pitik.. subok which conflict will solicit world appeal / support / sympathy.. then yun ang pukpukin...
sinimulan with Iran (Straight of Hormuz)... di gano umubra.. pero at least spike ang presyo ng krudo... then ano pa ba sumunod...
minsan talaga... parang pelikula.. conspiracy (Wag The Dog ba yun movie na yun).. gawa gawa lang... setup lang.. para makuha yung desired effect..
-
Social Dementia
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 25,070
September 14th, 2012 03:06 PM #14Obama pulling away from Romney in polls but Mideast looms | Reuters
Obama pulling away from Romney in polls but Mideast looms
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama is pulling away from rival Mitt Romney in polls in what might be a turning point in the U.S. presidential campaign, but volatility in the Middle East is allowing Republicans to cast the Democrat as weak on foreign policy and could threaten his momentum.
In the latest survey to show Obama ahead, a Reuters/Ipsos online poll on Thursday gave the Democrat a 7 percentage point lead, 48 percent to 41 percent, among likely voters.
Survey aggregator Real Clear Politics' average of national polls gives Obama a 3.3-point advantage while Gallup's seven-day tracking poll of registered voters has Obama leading by 6 points, one more than a Fox News survey of likely voters.
After months of a neck-and-neck race for the November 6 election, the recent data has stirred speculation that Obama may have reached a breakaway moment helped by the Democrats' convention in North Carolina last week when they laid out a case for his re-election.
"This election is far from over, and we're not inclined to make a final call until the first debate on October 3, but this seems clear: the election is slipping away from Romney," said Greg Valliere of Potomac Research Group which analyzes Washington for investors.
But in a reminder of how campaigns can shift easily, Republicans began building a strong argument against Obama for failing to stop the rise of Islamists in Egypt and Libya, where the U.S. ambassador was killed in an attack this week.
"You'd rather be in Obama's shoes today than Romney's," said Peter Brown, a pollster for Quinnipiac University.Last edited by Monseratto; September 14th, 2012 at 03:08 PM.
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 26,787
-
Tsikot Member Rank 4
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 45,927
September 14th, 2012 04:07 PM #16attacking Iran is still on the table Originally Posted by wowiesy
it's only a question of when
-
BANNED BANNED BANNED
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
- Posts
- 1,442
September 14th, 2012 04:28 PM #17The US can level the entire middle eastern area and still wala sila dependency sa oil neto. I read the 1973 -74 oil crisis, Putsa palabas Lang pala yun rationing sa US kuno, pero ang on its knees sa embargo ng rising OPEC noon eh Britain, France lol
The US is self-sufficient in oil, Grabe. Tama nga palabas Lang yan sa middle east, even if a full-blown war happens there, di maapektuhan US
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Social Dementia
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 25,070
September 14th, 2012 04:33 PM #18Would an attack on Iran have the same effect as the invasion of Iraq? Unless someone is willing to occupy Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, it would only delay and even result in a bigger problem.
Tehran attack risks
NEW YORK - A bipartisan group of former US diplomats, generals and government officials Thursday cautioned the US and Israel against launching attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, saying such a move would derail Tehran's programme for four years at most while uniting its citizens and alienating the Muslim world.
In a report - whose signatories include Brent Scowcroft, Ret. Admiral William Fallon, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, Retd General Anthony Zinni and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering - concludes that a unilateral Israeli attack would set back the Iranian nuclear programme by only 2 years and an American attack by 4 years.
But if the objective is “ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb,” the US “would need to conduct a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years.”
In order to achieve regime change, the report says, “the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the US has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”
While the report notes that an attack would yield some benefits - such as damaging Iran’s nuclear and military facilities and demonstrating US seriousness in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - costs could include Iranian counter-attacks against Israel and American interests, a breakdown of the international coalition against Iran and the “increased likelihood of Iran becoming” a nuclear armed state.
A sustained conflict “would boost the price of oil and further disrupt an already fragile world economy,” “could further alienate Muslims and others worldwide,” and likely “unify the [Iranian] population behind the government than to generate resistance.”
The signatories also conclude:
"Serious costs to US interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war."
The report’s conclusions echo assessments made by various former and current American and Israeli government and military officials
Military effectiveness notwithstanding, the New York-based group’s report concluded that “one of the most serious but difficult to quantify costs of military action against Iran could be damage to US reputation and standing.”
“If Iran’s nuclear programme is attacked by the US or Israel in the absence of an international mandate or a multinational coalition, support for maintaining sanctions against Iran could be substantially weakened,” the report said.
Iran may retaliate by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, an action that would “rattle global markets and cause a significant spike in oil prices,” according to the report.
An assault would “introduce destabilizing political and economic forces in a region already experiencing major transformations,” the report said. A US strike may provoke worldwide anger among Muslims and enhance al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit new members, it said.
The report reiterates conclusions previously outlined by US officials, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, about the limited effectiveness of a military attack on Iran..Last edited by Monseratto; September 14th, 2012 at 04:43 PM.
-
Social Dementia
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 25,070
September 14th, 2012 04:36 PM #19The world is not the US alone. Do you think the US will ship their oil to the Philippines if they level the middle east? Originally Posted by pop3corn
-
twoyotas
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 21,667
Originally Posted by uls
Reply With Quote
Daming issue ng SU7:grin:
Xiaomi E-Car