Jump to content

What about Joe?


willedoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Joe Biden at least appears to be busy leading up to his inauguration. Israeli press has reported that Biden's people have been communicating with the Iranians regarding a return to the JCPOA nuclear deal. Biden has previously said that he would consider returning the U.S. to the deal if Iran complies with the conditions of the deal. Joe's problem is that the Iranians were complying with conditions and the U.S. proved themselves to be an untrustworthy signatory by unilaterally leaving the agreement and reneging on sanctions. The lesson that countries around the world learnt from Trump is that any deal with the Americans isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

Trump has given the Iranians the upper hand in any negotiations and the only way it will restart is if Joe eats humble pie and returns to the original deal. The American and Israeli dream of including Iran's conventional missiles in a new deal just won't happen. Iran's mass of missile defences is the only thing that has stopped the U.S. and Israel from destroying their country and there's no way they'll give them up, trust the Americans and become defenceless. They've already proven they can withstand U.S. sanctions and have waved goodbye to generations of hostile U.S. administrations. Apart from sanctions, the only other tool the U.S. has is direct military action and that comes back to those missiles again. Iran will keep doing their thing and keep waving goodbye to one U.S. president after the other, Joe included.

 

Joe Biden has a big job ahead. On the domestic side, he has an almost failed state to try to repair. On the world stage, he has a long way to go to get back some level of trust and respect for the U.S., while juggling their own defence and security issues as well. Who knows, Joe might actually be up to the job; time will tell. Even if he ends up being a lame duck president, it will be much better than a mad duck. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, talk about being handed the poisoned chalice. What a job in front of him, to repair the destruction caused by Trump and his intransigence and BS!

 

I don't really know how the Americans could ever handle the mad Iranian Mullahs and their rabid followers, who have brought Iran down to nearly 3rd world country status.

 

It's a shame these peasant fxxxwits and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard, have overwhelmed the better type of intelligent, educated, artistic type of old-Persian Iranian.

 

I know a number of these type of Iranians here, and they are a much better type of person than the peasants currently ruling Iran. They also had the nous to leave Iran, while they could.

The Muslim Iranian hatred of America goes back a long way - long before even the crooked Shah was deposed. They blame the Americans for all their troubles.

But the Americans haven't forgotten the trauma of the Iranian Hostage crisis, either. There is a lot of long-harboured feeling in America, of a need to get even for that episode of extreme cruelty.

 

I have this feeling that the Israelis will be the ones to fix up any troublesome mad Iranian mullahs and their followers, thus solving the Americans the trouble.

 

The Stuxnet worm, which was reportedly engineered and delivered to the Iranian nuclear development programme by Israel, has wreaked havoc with the Iranians systems - and I'll wager it has caused a lot more damage than the Iranians are willing to currently admit.

The Iranians are facing a period of seriously-crimped income, as the use of oil goes into decline. The Saudis have addressed the problem with major re-investment into other energy areas, but I'm pretty sure the Iranians are still very dependent on oil income.

 

Edited by onetrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

 

That duck says it all.

2 hours ago, Yenn said:

Trump is not the only president to get the USA a bad name.

They incited the Kurds to rise up against Sadam Hussein and then left them to be attacked.

They propped up the Shah of Persia for years and that is what led to the modern Iran.

The war in Korea should never have happened and that led to the rise of N Korea and they have put up with the USA conducting war games on their doorstep and having vast numbers of US troops on their border. Without that nuclear deterrant the USA would have overrun N. Korea years ago.

They attacked Iraq the second time on a trumped up reasoning and demolished what was a stable state, with no thought as to what they were really trying to achieve.

They gave military intelligence to the Argentinians, when Argentine tried to take over the Falkland Islands.

Anyone who trusts the yanks is just putting themselves in harms way and that includes our politicians.

Yenn, missing from that line up is one peace prize winning president who bombed more countries than any other post war president, authorized extra judicial drone assassinations of U.S. citizens and presided over state sanctioned torture. They've nearly all been a bad bunch. The only one I have any respect for is Carter. During his four years, the U.S. didn't drop one bomb on another country.

Edited by willedoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Just use you BACKSPACE key and it will delete the quote. Then you can start over. 

Doesn't work for me. I can use the cursor and backspace within a quote box to get rid of the contents within the box, but it won't work for getting rid of the quote box and intro. Once posted that is, pre posting it works. Editing will only get rid of the quote contents.

 

Edit: figured it out. The cursor needs to be directly in front of the following text.

Edited by willedoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yenn said:

...They incited the Kurds to rise up against Sadam Hussein and then left them to be attacked.

A crime against decency; again and again the Kurds, an honorable, decent nationality, have been betrayed by the west.

6 hours ago, Yenn said:

...They attacked Iraq the second time on a trumped up reasoning and demolished what was a stable state, with no thought as to what they were really trying to achieve.

Successful, modern! progressive secular states were thin on the ground in the Middle East, so why did the western alliance destroy two of them (Iraq and Libya)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually visited Libya during the days of Gaddafi rule. The place seemed modern and the english-speaking taxi drivers were full of praise for Gaddafi. Yes I know those drivers were possibly all secret police but they seemed genuine to me.

The Benghazi school I saw had uniformed kids, boys and girls, playing normally in the yard. The skyline of Tripoli was full of cranes building apartments for people who previously lived in tents. A taxi-driver said that Gaddafi's parents were among the last to get an apartment. He said that before Gaddafi, the profits from oil all went overseas.

It sure wasn't a utopia, in Benghazi there were a couple of tough guys at the bar drinking Fantas. When I asked them about entertainment, they said that last week a couple of university students were hung in the public square. Apparently there had been a demonstration.

The local TV consisted of an old man reading the Koran. If he stopped to blow his nose, the camera didn't move. It may have been the worst TV on the planet.

The Benghazi hinterland looks just like SA, and has a similar climate too. There was a demo farm there, run by Australians. When I visited, there had just been a head-on collision between two harvesting machines in a paddock. These machines were driven by Sudanese, apparently farmhand work was below the dignity of Libyans. Similarly, road work was done by eastern european workers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

apparently farmhand work was below the dignity of Libyans.

And there's an example of the Rich exploiting the poor (although I don't know the wage scales for farm workers or navvies. That statement immediately brought to mind the British attitude to the Indians in the days of the Raj. I think that you will find the same behaviour throughout Arabia with the oil-rich natives refusing to do menial work and importing labour from poorer countries to do it. Just like Jose in Beverley Hills mowing the lawns of some film star's mansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The destruction of Libya was a disgrace. Previously it had one of the highest standards of living in North Africa. It rated higher than all other Arab countries on the Human Development Index. Free education and health care, newlyweds granted $50,000USD, fuel 14 cents per litre, housing for all citizens, no national debt and 150 billion reserves. In 2011 all Libyan oil was to be privatized and held by every citizen who would receive $21,000 each. Gaddafi announced that in Februrary, a month before the NATO led bombing started. Women had more rights than any other Moslem country in the region. They were free to drive, attend university, work and dress however they liked. Only constraints were those imposed by family.

 

So why did they destroy Libya? There are a lot of theories and we will probably never know the real truth. Gaddifi did kick out the foreigners stealing their oil revenue, much the same as Putin did in the early 2000's, and shortly before the trouble, he had  revived his idea of an African Gold Dina currency to cut the US petrodollar out of African oil deals. All coincidence maybe, but taking history into account, a very real possibility that these were connected.

 

There's a disturbing trend involving the destruction of countries by so called 'humanitarian intervention'. I think there needs to be more research done into these things. Firstly, the rebel groups that pop up and start fighting governments. How many of them are citizens and how many are imported foreign fighters? Who is funding them and arming them? As they say, follow the money trail. With the low standards and heavy saturation of media nowdays, a false flag is not a difficult thing to create.

Edited by willedoo
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can recall the Australian farm venture in Libya in the days of Gaddafi rule, from 1974 to 1980. A wealthy Libyan entered into an agreement with the S.A. Dunstan Govt to teach the Libyans dryland farming systems.

The Gaddafi Govt bought a sizeable amount of Australian-built farm equipment, so we got quite a bit of benefit from the deal. Then we had to teach them all about operating and maintaining the equipment.

 

Quite a number of Australian farmers went to Libya to assist in teaching the Libyans, including some of my W.A. farmer clients at that time. They came back shaking their heads, and told me what a head-banging effort it was.

When I say head-banging, I mean, like constantly beating your head against the wall. As was quoted with regard to Haile Selassie and Ethiopia - "He brought his country forward by 7 Centuries! - to the 5th Century!" - and so it was in Libya.

 

The simple problem in Libya was the pure peasant mentality. There were a mixture of Libyans and Sudanese in the farming operators - but they still had a 5th Century mentality. Mechanical aptitude was completely lacking.

I can recall these W.A. farmers telling me how they taught the Libyans how to operate the tractors and machines - and within a fortnight, they had forgotten half what they'd been taught. They had no feel for machinery.

They failed to check oils and coolant. They failed even basic maintenance checks. They would drive machines with something very obviously wrong, like a failing bearing screeching - and they wouldn't stop until the machine stopped.

 

The whole exercise was a total failure. It was bad enough that there was also a language barrier - but the whole deal failed because the Libyans could not get their head around anything beyond 5th Century farming techniques.

 

https://history.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/162080/Libya_story.pdf

 

And of course, Gaddafi was a total dictator and a repressive leader - so the lid had to blow off the pot eventually. Libya is no different to any other Middle Eastern country - full of violent tribes who are prepared to go to war with each other at the drop of a hat. And a repressive dictator is needed to control them. Libya today is a group of tribal kingdoms again, each led by a heavily armed warlord. The photo below says it all, for Libya's future.

 

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/libya-unstable-road-democracy/

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, spacesailor said:

In that picture! There,s a lot of bombs.

Who made them ?.

The native people don't know how to use a lathe, even if the yanks gave them one .

I don,t think they came free, from the manufacturer. 

spacesailor

Best guess is mainly Soviet/Russian made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo is of a collection of unexploded ordnance and unexpended ammunition and ordnance from the time of the popular revolt against Gaddafi's regime.

 

Libya's Oil money would have bought it all, and there's plenty of countries all too willing to supply armaments, ammunition and endless amounts of weaponry, provided the purchaser keeps paying.

 

In numerous cases, it was probably a straight swap for oil supplies, and Libya has endless volumes of oil. The problem is now, the oil money doesn't necessarily go to the "official" Govt in Tripoli.

 

There are numerous Libyan warlords who control oil wells, and they answer only to themselves. The official Libyan Govt has no power outside Tripoli, no national armed forces, no national police force.

 

The country is a hiding place for Islamic terrorists, and they receive support there. There is only one way to introduce order again - total disarmament of all the warlords and their supporters, and a major International UN force taking control of law and order.

But it won't happen because the worlds leading countries don't have the stomach for settling another long-drawn-out Middle East civil war. And besides, a lot of those weapons-producing countries are quite happy to see continuous war there.

 

https://atalayar.com/en/blog/war-libya-and-its-oil-resources-order-inside-chaos

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Biden has the sense to avoid a return to their regime change plots in the Middle East. All it's done is ruin millions of lives and destabilize the region. At this stage it's not looking good if you take into account the CV's of the people he's filling the State Department with. Biggest worry is appointing the Cookie Lady as Under Secretary of Political Affairs. For the sake of peace, let's hope they've learnt from their mistakes during the Bush and Obomber administrations. That's a high hope and probably not realistic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Americans have had enough of Middle Eastern wars, and the nation has little stomach for more of the same endless, unwinnable adventures.

 

Every day the average American is faced with coming across numbers of disabled war veterans, some of whom are little more than vegetables in wheelchairs from their endless M.E. war adventures.

 

The Iraqi "Juba" snipers were deadly, and they would rub the Americans faces in it, by posting YouTube videos of their kills and near-kills, getting through gaps in massive American protection with deadly-accurate head shots.

 

But the problem with the Americans was their superb medical skills. Whereas, in previous conflicts, someone took a bullet in the head, they were done for. But in Iraq, the medics saved many American soldiers who had been sniper targets.

 

For what benefit? The vast majority of these people saved from severe brain trauma ended up as vegetables in wheelchairs. It would have better to let them die.

 

The most disturbing YT sniper video I ever watched, was an attractive young American woman soldier taking a head shot from a sniper. She only had her head showing above the armour, that's all the Iraqis needed.

 

I recall how they finally discovered one sniper (by accident, I reckon), he had an old Chevy where he'd taken the key barrel out of the boot lid, and installed a virtually invisible viewing slit as well.

 

He'd park near to where the Americans were gathering, or had gathered, slide into the boot, aim the rifle from the key barrel hole, and KAPOW! Then he'd drive off in the resulting confusion and scramble.

 

The Americans are big on huge Armed Force shows, but they're prime targets for guerilla tactics - and have been, since WW1.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

The Americans are big on huge Armed Force shows, but they're prime targets for guerilla tactics - and have been, since WW1.

They've never done asymmetric well. It would be interesting to see on paper how they would go against the Russians in a conventional conflict. The former Soviet and current Russian tactics have always been based around a degree of asymmetric warfare. Long ago, they realized they could never out man or out gun the U.S., so their forces were designed to be highly mobile and effective. Move quick, strike the soft underbelly, then withdraw leaving the enemy shadowboxing.

 

But what about the Chinese? I know nothing much about their military structure. I've always assumed they were more conventional like the Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...