Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Modern day Imperialism.

The Conquest - Middle East.

The Invaders, USA, UK, France.

The Objective:- Oil, Oil, Oil!

The Validation of their Actions :- Terrorism, Saddam Hussein, Iran

The Latest Move:- French President Mr. Nicolas Sarzoky has opened a French defense (naval) base in Abu-Dhabi. Described as the first French defense base in the Arabian Gulf, the unit will comprise about 500 personnel drawn mainly from the French Navy. The naval base, dubbed ‘Peace Camp’ is likely to face the Strait of Hormuz, just across from Iran. The strait, which separates the UAE’s neighbors Iran and Oman, is vital as 40 per cent of the world’s crude oil is transported through it.
The move is widely seen as a sign of France’s tougher stance on Iran since Sarkozy took office in 2007. “We are deliberately taking a deterrent stance,” said an aide to Sarkozy. “If Iran were to attack, we would effectively be attacked also.”

How close are we to WWIII ? This time round the difference being should there be a World War only Asia stand to loose!

Misery Called Life wrote:Modern day Imperialism.

The Target - The Middle East.

The invaders, USA, UK, France.

The Objective:- Oil, Oil, Oil!

The Validation of their Actions :- Terrorism, Saddam Hussein, Iran

The Latest Move:- French President Mr. Nicolas Sarzoky has opened a French defense (naval) base in Abu-Dhabi. Described as the first French defense base in the Arabian Gulf, the unit will comprise about 500 personnel drawn mainly from the French Navy. The naval base, dubbed ‘Peace Camp’ is likely to face the Strait of Hormuz, just across from Iran. The strait, which separates the UAE’s neighbors Iran and Oman, is vital as 40 per cent of the world’s crude oil is transported through it.
The move is widely seen as a sign of France’s tougher stance on Iran since Sarkozy took office in 2007. “We are deliberately taking a deterrent stance,” said an aide to Sarkozy. “If Iran were to attack, we would effectively be attacked also.”

How close are we to WWIII ? This time round the difference being should there be a World War only Asia stand to loose!

You are on the wrong perspective my friend:

I agree with modern imperialism, but not for obtaining oil resources. Those agreements are in place. Its about avoiding a nuclear arms race with Iran.

The Target: Iran trying to obtain nuclear capability
(first solid and liquid fuel rocket technology capable of carrying nuclear warheads etc, then uranium enrichment for peaceful nuclear facilities towards 'energy independance' and coming up: weapons of mass destruction...)

The defense team: KSA, UAE, Oman, US, UK and France

The objective: protecting technology assets and interests on bilateral agreements on the Arab peninsula

Validation: protecting the supply of 40% of the worlds oil in the center of the world, where Iran is capable of locking down the Hormuz Straits. Why the protection? simple, without oil from the Persian Gulf, the world stops spinning, economically.

'Best part' is: IF Iran acted now in times of a global recession, the world would probably fall into a depression like the 1930's. An oil crisis would just be part of the entire problem. Capital is hard to get nowadays. The barrel would be unaffordable and our world's economies would stop spinning.

Hmm speaking to this, yup there my be a motive to the oil but its for it to be lower and affordable on the market.

2nd is to avoid any nuclear holocaust and arms race for world dominance. Thats why their trying to put neccessary defences.

portland wrote: arms race for world dominance.

The arms race. It sounds like the shot from the past. One country has been dominating in the World from Reagan's era. It's too busy with 2 fronts to open the third one.

Yea the resons are obvious. Safeguarding the Hormuz is of high importance. But is this really gonna deter Iran? Or is there some other agenda in place? In the event of a lock down of the Hormuz by Iran, what happens? This is so remniscent of WWII.

Misery Called Life wrote:Yea the resons are obvious. Safeguarding the Hormuz is of high importance. But is this really gonna deter Iran? Or is there some other agenda in place? In the event of a lock down of the Hormuz by Iran, what happens? This is so remniscent of WWII.

What are you talking about son. This has nothing to do with WWII.

World War II was about jews taking away jobs from German people since jews are simply good traders. They know how to make a business run. Thats what caused the rise of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

What remniscent of WWII?

RobbyG wrote:World War II was about jews taking away jobs from German people since jews are simply good traders. They know how to make a business run. Thats what caused the rise of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

WWII was far more than just German VS Jews.

The whole Axis Powers were killing and robbing on the whole Eurasia continent. Do you even have an idea how many people in Asia did Japanese kill during WWII?

WhiteJade wrote:

RobbyG wrote:World War II was about jews taking away jobs from German people since jews are simply good traders. They know how to make a business run. Thats what caused the rise of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

WWII was far more than just German VS Jews.

The whole Axis Powers were killing and robbing on the whole Eurasia continent. Do you even have an idea how many people in Asia did Japanese kill during WWII?

It started about this little fact and spead accross the world into a holocaust and global power (German Reich) together with its allies (for their own reasons).

The intial reason is very local however.
This quarrel has got nothing but a relation to WWII. Its just about intolerance and stupid pride/injustice.

You can write a never ending story about this subject. I'll end it here if you don't mind

Simple case of allies. Attacking French troops in UAE is equivalent to a war against France. That brings in a whole host of countries into the equation, even though their mainlands were not targetted.
An oil embargo would then entail that other Asian countries intervene. And from there on it can very easily spiral out of control!

As I said earliar Asia stands to loose!

The real reason of the WWII was the excessive reparations which Antanta had imposed on Germany after WWI that only Hitler rejected to pay.

After WWII Allies eventually forgave some reparations and defeated nations Germany and France established "European Coal and Steel Community" that eventually transformed to EU.

Japan's been denying their crime committed during WWII.

Red Chief wrote:The real reason of the WWII was the excessive reparations which Antanta had imposed on Germany after WWI that only Hitler rejected to pay.

After WWII Allies eventually forgave some reparations and defeated nations Germany and France established "European Coal and Steel Community" that eventually transformed to EU.

Bang on target. Hitler wanted to abolish the Treaty of Versailles. Robby is also right. Post 1929 severe unemployment gripped Germany and that led to a surge in membership for Hitler's party.

A second cause of World War II was the Appeasement policy which Britain and France followed in the 1930s. This policy was basically one of giving in to Hitler in whatever he wanted. It started when Britain signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935, allowing Germany to increase its navy to up to 35 percent of the size of the British navy. Thereafter, France appeased Germany by not taking any action when Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland. Hitler had ordered the troops to retreat upon any form of resistance from the French.

Robby is right only in one thing that the World War is the best exit from any economical depression.

After WWII the World was in ruins. The only country who made the great leap forward during WWII was the U.S.A.

I wonder why France, not US, has just opened the base.

At the other hand UAE actually was one of a few nation who regularly bought French weapon.

Is there any tension between UAE and US? That notorious story of failed deal in purchasing American ports by DP World...

Red Chief wrote:I wonder why France, not US, has just opened the base.

At the other hand UAE actually was one of a few nation who regularly bought French weapon.

Is there any tension between UAE and US? That notorious story of failed deal in purchasing American ports by DP World...

This has probably something to do with the nuclear deal? Once passed by Congress, a French company will be involved with the building and operations of the reactor.
Part of that clause I think involves continues monitoring of the reactor.
I guess that's why the French are in town!

Misery Called Life wrote:

Red Chief wrote:I wonder why France, not US, has just opened the base.

At the other hand UAE actually was one of a few nation who regularly bought French weapon.

Is there any tension between UAE and US? That notorious story of failed deal in purchasing American ports by DP World...

This has probably something to do with the nuclear deal? Once passed by Congress, a French company will be involved with the building and operations of the reactor.
Part of that clause I think involves continues monitoring of the reactor.
I guess that's why the French are in town!

+1 point

The UAE has contractual agreed to import the reactor fuel instead of producing and enriching it themselves. There has to be a safe port to monitor these shipments, so I think its basically a French nuclear navy base soon

France will be monitoring the safety of the assets and assisting the logistical part of the imports. If Iran thinks to hijack a reactor fuel product, the French navy is involved from a strategical location right next to Abu Dhabi.

Pressure is building on Iran.

MCL,
You are right.

Anyway I don't see (maybe I don't know) strong ties between US and UAE. It's completely opposite to KSA and Kuweit.It looks like a lack of confidence.
In spite of the tension around Irani nuclear program UAE and Iran have always had strong trade ties. Moreover UAE is the main gateway to the Free World for Iran.
There has been the embargo for selling new technologies to the Iran and I know that some distributors of computer's part lost their contracts due to violation...

At the other hand it was the first new military base of France for last 50 years... those nuclear plant talks... the purchasing of French aircrafts....

WhiteJade wrote: Do you even have an idea how many people in Asia did Japanese kill during WWII?

He-he... You want too much from this forum. Some people here believe that Brits made the crucial contribution to the victory. Without them all World would speak German or Japanese now.

I'm not quite sure if they know anything about participation China in the war excluding occupations of Hong Kong and Singapore because they were British colonies at that time.

If you say that China lost more than Brits they won't believe you.

Red Chief wrote:

WhiteJade wrote: Do you even have an idea how many people in Asia did Japanese kill during WWII?

He-he... You want too much from this forum. Some people here believe that Brits made the crucial contribution to the victory. Without them all World would speak German or Japanese now.

I'm not quite sure if they know anything about participation China in the war excluding occupations of Hong Kong and Singapore because they were British colonies at that time.

If you say that China lost more than Brits they won't believe you.

Don't start up again or you will regret it!

My tag line about language was taken from an American bumper sticker, they are the guardians of the 'free world' now, whether you like it or not.

You know very well indeed that Britain made a crucial (who said THE crucial?) contribution to WWII. If Britain had not stayed the only single European country not under German rule (with no outside assistance), then Hitler would have crushed you also. Hitler offered a tempting world-power sharing deal to Britain, he did not want the territories ruled by Britain, and maybe a country with less integirity would have taken the deal. That would have sunk Mother Russia inside six months.

Also are you not aware that UK and her dominions were fighting and spilling their own blood in North Africa, Burma, Yugoslavia,, etc., etc. as well as defending their home front? You still have not read any serious history books have you?

I am aware that Russia lost more troops than UK, that is because their troops were shot by their own side if they retreated, also they went into battle ingly badly equipped.



More stuff of interest:
It is undeniably true that hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers
did decide to work for the side of Germany during WWII.

[Andrei Andreyevich] Vlasov was a decorated Russian General who fought fiercely against the
Germans to defend Leningrad. But his troops were surrounded and
slaughtered, and Vlasov himself captured by the Germans after hiding
in the swamps for weeks. In captivity, Vlasov -- who apparently
despised Stalin -- agreed to form an Army of Russian defectors who
would fight to defeat Stalin in Russia. The Germans never actually
gave Vlasov his Army, but Russian deserters did, in fact, broadly
support the German war effort. I did not find specific references to
their work as guards on trains, but it is certainly within the realm
of possibility that they performed functions like these.

Two very good summary articles on Vlasov can be found at these sites:

Cecil Adams, of "Straight Dope" fame, offers his take on this history
of Vlasov's infamous army here:

----------

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030627.html
During WWII, did a Soviet general and his men desert to the Nazis?

The man's name was Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, and we'll get to his
story in a minute. First you need to grasp the enormity of what
happened to Soviet soldiers captured by the Nazis during World War II.
Between five hundred thousand and a million Soviet POWs either
volunteered to fight alongside Nazi troops against their former
comrades or were coerced into doing so. Another six million Soviets,
many of them POWs, were forced into German slave-labor battalions that
manufactured war materiel. At the end of World War II, a total of
about two million Russians came under the control of advancing
American and British forces, many of whom had contributed (voluntarily
or not) to the German war effort. Those in charge knew that Stalin
considered these people collaborators or traitors, and in truth many
of them did see the Soviet system as a hateful cancer on Mother
Russia. Yet the western Allied forces--under supreme commander
Eisenhower--repatriated virtually all the Russians to the Soviet
Union, in some cases forcibly, knowing full well they were sending
them to their doom.?


----------


A U.S. commanding officer from WWII offers his personal recollection
of Vlasov?s surrender to the American?s:

http://www.150th.com/stories/czech150.htm
General Vlasov's Army

In the final days of World War II a complete German army composed of
white Russians surrendered to the American forces in Czechoslovakia.
This was General Vlasov's Army trying to avoid capture by the
Russians.

At the time, I was assigned to a Combat Command to classify roads and
bridges and measure road blocks that needed to be removed by the
engineers. All at once the column stopped and so I proceeded up the
road in front of the column to see what the problem was...
...Soon after, an army of German soldiers came marching down the road
in full dress carrying white flags. It turned out that these were
white Russians who had joined the German forces because their
political views were opposed to Stalin and the Red Russian communists.


----------

There is one other infamous aspect of Vlasov's tale. At the end of
WWII, he and his men tried to surrender to the Americans, in order to
avoid being returned to Russia and to certain death. President
Roosevelt, however, had secretly entered into an agreement with the
Russians to repatriate all troops and prisoners, so that Vlasov and
thousands of other deserters, were returned to Russia, and a great
many of them were killed as deserters.

An interesting, if somewhat unorthodox take on Vlasov and the
repatriation issue can be seen at the site of the Future of Freedom
Forum:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0295a.asp
Repatriation -- The Dark Side of World War II

Speedhump wrote:You know very well indeed that Britain made a crucial (who said THE crucial?) contribution to WWII. If Britain had not stayed the only single European country not under German rule (with no outside assistance), then Hitler would have crushed you also. That would have sunk Mother Russia inside six months.

Who told you what I know? I know that Brits struggled against, ("suffered from" is better word) Germans, that's all.

US also used UK as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for bombing the most beautiful German cities, like Hannover, Humburg and Cologne etc. They were totally destroyed. I saw by my own eyes that there are only a few old buildings in these cities now.

Don't worry about Mother Russia. Nobody has been able to defeat her for 600 years. You have to accept her presence regardeless of your desire.

Speedhump wrote:Hitler offered a tempting world-power sharing deal to Britain, he did not want the territories ruled by Britain, and maybe a country with less integirity would have taken the deal.

Please tell me what kind of a deal you are talking about because I know only Molotov (the "inventer" of Molotov cocktail) - Ribbentrop packt about sharing Europe.

Double post.

You two could be really good friends you know that

SH, I got it.

There are things:

1. you just love to talk about;
2. you just love to talk bad about (ok, you don't talk bad about things, you just happen to have a list of their bad aspects)
3. you choose to ignore.

Here's another topic you can write an essay on:

Munich Agreement

WhiteJade wrote:SH, I got it.

There are things:

1. you just love to talk about;
2. you just love to talk bad about (ok, you don't talk bad about things, you just happen to have a list of their bad aspects)
3. you choose to ignore.

Here's another stuff you can write an essay on:

Munich Agreement

All I did was respond to a prod. Why do you attack me?

The Munich Agreeent was made between several European leaders to try to prevent a war in Europe. Hitler broke the terms of the agreement by an act of aggression against another European power, the British Government were shamed (as were France and Italy), and Britain then correctly declared war in defence of Europe. I have no idea what your point is. You 'got' nothing!

Red Chief wrote:Double post.

Twice as much bullsh*t woud not be good.....

Red Chief wrote:Please tell me what kind of a deal you are talking about because I know only Molotov (the "inventer" of Molotov cocktail) - Ribbentrop packt about sharing Europe.

As I said, you really should not be taking generally aggressive postures against me when your knowledge of the subject is so poor. But as you have this time asked a reasonable question I can answer (not in my own words as I don't have the time to get involved in your education to such an extent! :


For 20 years Hitler had dreamed of an alliance with Britain. Until far into the war he clung to the dream with all the vain, slightly ridiculous tenacity of a lover unwilling to admit that his feelings are unrequited. As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940: “After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. . . .”


German Gen. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape:

He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planning there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.

Blumentritt’s statement is not the only notice about Hitler’s hope of peace and friendship with England. The renowned Swedish Explorer Sven Hedin observed Hitler’s confusion about Britain’s refusal to accept his peace offers: Hitler “felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blacked his eye in reply.” Hitler said, “The survival of the British Empire is in Germany’s interests too because if Britain loses India, we gain nothing thereby.”

WhiteJade wrote: Munich Agreement

Minich collusion, you wanted to say.

Why I'm not surprised that Uncle Joe agreed with Ribbentrop-Molotov packt jast after that.

Hitler foolled both partners.

Speedhump wrote:

WhiteJade wrote:SH, I got it.

There are things:

1. you just love to talk about;
2. you just love to talk bad about (ok, you don't talk bad about things, you just happen to have a list of their bad aspects)
3. you choose to ignore.

Here's another stuff you can write an essay on:

Munich Agreement

All I did was respond to a prod. Why do you attack me?

The Munich Agreeent was made between several European leaders to try to prevent a war in Europe. Hitler broke the terms of the agreement by an act of aggression against another European power, the British Government were shamed (as were France and Italy), and Britain then correctly declared war in defence of Europe. I have no idea what your point is. You 'got' nothing!

It was not an attack. It's an opinion. You've yours and I've mine.

Munich Agreement, which agreed Germany to take charge of an area that belonged to Czechoslovakia was signed without the presence of Czechoslovakia. It was an ugly deal. You have to admit that.

1. you loved to talk about the Great Britain's efforts to save herself and other countries during WWII;
2. you listed captured Soviets betraying their motherland. Yeah you were just telling true history.
3. you choose to ignore that RC's post was mostly about him knowing some about what happened in Asia during WWII.

That's what I got.

Speedy, even British Arab applies some source in case of citation. Why don't you, Brave Colonel, do that?

All you wrote here are some dreams of the same colonels as you or random citation. It looks like "Memoirs of Geisha" as the last evidence for the WWII.

I was talking about some "Memorandums" or "Projects of agreement".

It could be right if Hitles had some feeling to the British as nation, but actually UK was his permanent enemy.

All this talk bout the war reminds me of the comedy series Allo Allo

WJ from where you from? China? Korea? North or South?

SH interesting take on Hitler and his fondness for the British empire. I was not aware of that.

I got an idea for an attraction at the Mall of the Emirates.
Speedie and RC in a no-holds-barred debate on the virtues of Russia and the UK or anything.The two of them should be hilarious. A real crowd puller.

On a more serious note:-
Who here think that a WWIII could actually take place?