U.S. flies B-52 over South Korea after North's nuclear test

[Daneshmand]

Michael, power projection ability does not necessarily mean the will to use it is there. One's kinetic capability has to be governed, kept in check by regulatory processes in government and military. Naturally, we Japanese would like a diplomatic way of solving the issue, hopefully, to realize the peaceful reunification of Korea. Afterall, since the late 19th century, an independent and unified Korea, had ceased to exist.



Well, there is a major dichotomy between Iraq and Iran, my friend. Iran is not as sectarian and divided as Iraq, which is a actually a Shia majority country with a Sunni minority ruling (Saddam was Sunni, so is his home base of Tikrit), whereas the majority of IRAN is actually Shia. Iraq, unfortunately, was a British artificial creation, with a large Kurdish population in the north, a small Sunni population in the center near Baghdad, and a very large Shia population in the East, South, and parts of the Southwest, my friend. The eventual splintering of Iraq was bound to happen absence of a strong political figure like Saddam Hussein, who was able to quash divisive and sectarian forces (in fact Saddam summarily had Takfiri clerics executed on regular basis, many of whom were deluded in Saudi-influenced Wahhabism), as he knew even then of the potential threat of radical Takfiri ideology.

In Iran, my friend, the nation is majority Shia, with a wide national base. Iran, unlike Iraq, was not artificially created by the British, since the present borders of Iran is the continuation of the borders of the Safavid Dynasty , and even during the Persian Empire, the bulk if not the majority of the Persian heartland remains in the current borders of modern Iran ( Iran, Islamic Republic). Iran, unlike Iraq, also has a massive population, Michael. She has a population of over 81 million, and that is growing, making Iran one of the most densely populated states in the MIddle East (at par level with Turkey, and to an extent, Egypt). Iran is also relatively , politically stable, with a harmonious religious establishment that synergizes with their political establishment.

Any invasion of Iran would result in total, and epic failure, my friend. Iran is at the heart of Western Asia, she is home to the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the world, and has the third largest reserve of petroleum, mostly untappped, actually. So, on resource level -- she is able to last a long war, bolstered by her large man power, which has the ability to demolish her much weaker neighbors. Third, Iran is strategically linked to Russia and China, and to an extent even India. So a practical war on this population-rich, resource-rich, strategically vital nation state is antithetical to the interest of Moscow, Beijing and even Delhi.

This is why, my friend, the West, NATO, and the United States does not have the capability to muster strength to take on Iran, Islamic Republic. The West can barely even commit ground troops to take on ISIS, or even the Alawite Regime in Syria, are you saying that the West has the appetite to swallow a much larger state, Iran? Let's be realistic here, my English friend. Let us not argue in absurdity.

Let me end this here with this. Even at the height of Iraq's power, with all the defense equipment she had purchased from the USSR and the Americans, with American intel provision, even tho she battered the fledgling Revolutionary Iranian State for close to 8 years, still, Iraq's some 500,000 size Army was unable to break ground on Iranian soil, and unable to even capture key positions. What makes you think that ANY country now in the region (please don't think the KSA can even take on a fight with Tehran, LOL) can dare take on Iran head on? We are no longer dealing with a fledgling revolutionary state in the early 80s, my friend, we are dealing with an industrializing power, with the potential to be a regional great power, in her own right.

@Daneshmand @Serpentine

Let it be my dear Japanese brother. These are relatively new nations. I mean even English language is just less than one thousand years old, let alone countries that speak them. They have no depth when it comes to long term vision of history and how civilizations live and die. Only people who come from old civilizations like Japanese or Iranians for example can appreciate what you are trying to say here. For the rest, it is almost always a case of quick gratification and almost childish perception of fluidity of history. That is a difference between a weathered culture which has been sitting on planet for thousands of years, and one that sprang to existence 40 or 600 years ago.

Don't expect the newer people to understand you completely. It is just not possible for them.

 

[Aepsilons]

Let it be my dear Japanese brother. These are relatively new nations. I mean even English language is just less than one thousand years old, let alone countries that speak them. They have no depth when it comes to long term vision of history and how civilizations live and die. Only people who come from old civilizations like Japanese or Iranians for example can appreciate what you are trying to say here. For the rest, it is almost always a case of quick gratification and almost childish perception of fluidity of history. That is a difference between a weathered culture which has been sitting on planet for thousands of years, and one that sprang to existence 40 or 600 years ago.

Don't expect the newer people to understand you completely. It is just not possible for them.

It is just insult to intellect , my friend. Iran is not some kind of tributary state as like the Koreans, which, for a while existed as a tributary of the Chinese Civilization, or part of the Japanese Empire. Iran, or to be historically accurate, Persia, was the center of the Fertile Crescent over 2 millenia ago. Even before the English or Celts were civilized by the Romans , even before the genesis of a Rome or Roman civilization, there was already Persia. In fact when the Greeks were just minor villages on the banks of Europe and Asia Minor, the Persian Empire was the behemoth that had demolished the Ptolemic Egyptian Empire, then had conquered Assyrian Empire (their capital being Babylon), the fledgling Hindu Kush civilizations , and the rest of Asia Minor -- all were under the rule of the Persian Empire.

When we talk about Iran we are not talking about a recent state created after the ashes of post-colonian epoch , we are talking about the continuation of the Safavids, and the Persians before them. Birthplace of modern western understanding of civilization. In fact even modern Judaism and Christianity (and ultimately Islam) was influenced by Persian religious text, Persian culture.

In the historical aspect, the English Empire and civilization lasted 2-3 centuries, Persian civilization lasted over 2 millenia, and one that had led to the formation of modern regional identities.

 

[nang2]

It is just insult to intellect , my friend. Iran is not some kind of tributary state as like the Koreans, which, for a while existed as a tributary of the Chinese Civilization, or part of the Japanese Empire. Iran, or to be historically accurate, Persia, was the center of the Fertile Crescent over 2 millenia ago. Even before the English or Celts were civilized by the Romans , even before the genesis of a Rome or Roman civilization, there was already Persia. In fact when the Greeks were just minor villages on the banks of Europe and Asia Minor, the Persian Empire was the behemoth that had demolished the Ptolemic Egyptian Empire, then had conquered Assyrian Empire (their capital being Babylon), the fledgling Hindu Kush civilizations , and the rest of Asia Minor -- all were under the rule of the Persian Empire.

When we talk about Iran we are not talking about a recent state created after the ashes of post-colonian epoch , we are talking about the continuation of the Safavids, and the Persians before them. Birthplace of modern western understanding of civilization. In fact even modern Judaism and Christianity (and ultimately Islam) was influenced by Persian religious text, Persian culture.

In the historical aspect, the English Empire and civilization lasted 2-3 centuries, Persian civilization lasted over 2 millenia, and one that had led to the formation of modern regional identities.

When Persian Empire conquered Egypt. It was not Ptolemic Egypt. If I recall correctly, Alexander the Great conquered Persian Empire and then Egypt. After Alexander's death, his general Ptolemy officially ruled Egypt.

 

[Aepsilons]

When Persian Empire conquered Egypt. It was not Ptolemic Egypt. If I recall correctly, Alexander the Great conquered Persian Empire and then Egypt. After Alexander's death, his general Ptolemy officially ruled Egypt.

I stand corrected, yes, Ptolemic Egypt was after Alexander had died. When the Persian Empire conquered Egypt, it was during the rule of Pharaoh Psamtik, of the 26th Dynasty. Perhaps the last native Egyptian Dynasty.

It was interesting also to know that during the War between Egypt and Persia, the Eyptians were preferred to win, however the battle of Pelusium saw to the extermination of the Egyptian Army, and the annexation of Pharaohic Egypt into the Persian Empire!

 

[nang2]

I stand corrected, yes, Ptolemic Egypt was after Alexander had died. When the Persian Empire conquered Egypt, it was during the rule of Pharaoh Psamtik, of the 26th Dynasty. Perhaps the last native Egyptian Dynasty.

It was interesting also to know that during the War between Egypt and Persia, the Eyptians were preferred to win, however the battle of Pelusium saw to the extermination of the Egyptian Army, and the annexation of Pharaohic Egypt into the Persian Empire!

Ptolemic Egypt was conquered by Romans. Persian Empire at 500BC was before Alexander the Great (~300BC) and it was created by a guy called "Cyrus". Later the Greek dude Xenophon wrote a book on his education, which actually modeled on Spatans.

Just noticed you corrected yourself so nevermind.

 

[Aepsilons]

Ptolemic Egypt was conquered by Romans. Persian Empire at 500BC was before Alexander the Great (~300BC) and it was created by a guy called "Cyrus". Later the Greek dude Xenophon wrote a book on his education, which actually modeled on Spatans.

Just noticed you corrected yourself so nevermind.

Yes, it is quite impressive really. What i find also interesting is that after Alexander conquered Persia, his goal of fusing Greco-Persian culture ended in relative failure. Ultimately, his generals were unable to maintain their dynasties in the sense of preserving Greco culture. The ultimatley married into and adopted the local culture. For example Ptolemy who ruled Egypt, eventually they merely adopted the preexisting Egyptian religion and court culture. Same thing for Seleucids as well, who eventually maintained the Persian culture.

@nang2 , it is quite interesting because the Alexandrian process of the Persian Empire was to show what would happen to the Mongols and to an extent the Manchus in regards to their reign in China. Tho originally foreign, the Mongol Khan who ruled on China, his successors eventually adopted and fused with the Confucian ideology and Confucian based culture of Tianxia. By the end of the Yuan Dynasty, they were no different than the predecessor Song Emperors, actually. In manner of speech, dress, and writing, and court procedures.

 

[nang2]

Yes, it is quite impressive really. What i find also interesting is that after Alexander conquered Persia, his goal of fusing Greco-Persian culture ended in relative failure. Ultimately, his generals were unable to maintain their dynasties in the sense of preserving Greco culture. The ultimatley married into and adopted the local culture. For example Ptolemy who ruled Egypt, eventually they merely adopted the preexisting Egyptian religion and court culture. Same thing for Seleucids as well, who eventually maintained the Persian culture.

Yet the Hellenization still applied to a very wide area, especially the asia minor. Even nowadays, some folks in Lebanon and Cyprus consider themselves to be closer to Greece than Arab.

Culture influence never works like military conquest. It is a very slow process, only sped up a little bit with the aid of military power. I guess for all great powers, the patience and persistence are required if they want the cultural influence to be in their favor for the long run.

 

[Aepsilons]

Yet the Hellenization still applied to a very wide area, especially the asia minor. Even nowadays, some folks in Lebanon and Cyprus consider themselves to be closer to Greece than Arab.

It is probably due to the effect of political satellitism , my friend. Cyprus, for example, had been historically of Greco domain in fact during the Egptian-Persian War, the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time, who was part of the 26th Dynasty, had courted the favor of the Tyrant of Cyprus for aid in the war against Persia. However, the Tyrant of Cyprus , which had a large fleet at the time, now had preferred to side with the Persians due to the Persian Army's size, as well as the Persian Navy, which threatened to break the Cyprian fleet if it would join the request of Psamtik III.

If we fast forward a millenia, my friend, this region , particularly Asia Minor , was under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire, later reformed as the Byzantine Empire, was mainly of Greco-Anatolian culture. This is why areas of Western Turkey still have a strong Greco subculture because of the Greco colonization of the region during the Byzantine Empire. In fact many Turks , themselves, have Greek blood.

We cannot ignore the effect of political and cultural satellitism, my friend. This is a reality in many parts of the world where there is a civilization effect. This is in context to China, or the Sinosphere, where her cultural dominance had political and cultural satellitism on early and feudal Japan and early and feudal Korea. The same goes also for Roman civilization and its political and cultural satellitism on Roman territories such as Romanized Gaul (France), Romanized Germania Inferior (present day Bavaria and Austria; hence the strong presence of Roman Catholicism in these areas as compared to the protestant Northern German states).

Culture influence never works like military conquest. It is a very slow process, only sped up a little bit with the aid of military power. I guess for all great powers, the patience and persistence are required if they want the cultural influence to be in their favor for the long run.

Yes, agreed. Cultural Satellitism or Cultural Imperialism has the tendency of long term , whereas military adventurism or interventionism tends to be short term and also historically ineffective.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Well, there is a major dichotomy between Iraq and Iran, my friend. Iran is not as sectarian and divided as Iraq, which is a actually a Shia majority country with a Sunni minority ruling (Saddam was Sunni, so is his home base of Tikrit), whereas the majority of IRAN is actually Shia. Iraq, unfortunately, was a British artificial creation, with a large Kurdish population in the north, a small Sunni population in the center near Baghdad, and a very large Shia population in the East, South, and parts of the Southwest, my friend. The eventual splintering of Iraq was bound to happen absence of a strong political figure like Saddam Hussein, who was able to quash divisive and sectarian forces (in fact Saddam summarily had Takfiri clerics executed on regular basis, many of whom were deluded in Saudi-influenced Wahhabism), as he knew even then of the potential threat of radical Takfiri ideology.

In Iran, my friend, the nation is majority Shia, with a wide national base. Iran, unlike Iraq, was not artificially created by the British, since the present borders of Iran is the continuation of the borders of the Safavid Dynasty , and even during the Persian Empire, the bulk if not the majority of the Persian heartland remains in the current borders of modern Iran ( Iran, Islamic Republic). Iran, unlike Iraq, also has a massive population, Michael. She has a population of over 81 million, and that is growing, making Iran one of the most densely populated states in the MIddle East (at par level with Turkey, and to an extent, Egypt). Iran is also relatively , politically stable, with a harmonious religious establishment that synergizes with their political establishment.

Any invasion of Iran would result in total, and epic failure, my friend. Iran is at the heart of Western Asia, she is home to the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the world, and has the third largest reserve of petroleum, mostly untappped, actually. So, on resource level -- she is able to last a long war, bolstered by her large man power, which has the ability to demolish her much weaker neighbors. Third, Iran is strategically linked to Russia and China, and to an extent even India. So a practical war on this population-rich, resource-rich, strategically vital nation state is antithetical to the interest of Moscow, Beijing and even Delhi.

This is why, my friend, the West, NATO, and the United States does not have the capability to muster strength to take on Iran, Islamic Republic. The West can barely even commit ground troops to take on ISIS, or even the Alawite Regime in Syria, are you saying that the West has the appetite to swallow a much larger state, Iran? Let's be realistic here, my English friend. Let us not argue in absurdity.

Let me end this here with this. Even at the height of Iraq's power, with all the defense equipment she had purchased from the USSR and the Americans, with American intel provision, even tho she battered the fledgling Revolutionary Iranian State for close to 8 years, still, Iraq's some 500,000 size Army was unable to break ground on Iranian soil, and unable to even capture key positions. What makes you think that ANY country now in the region (please don't think the KSA can even take on a fight with Tehran, LOL) can dare take on Iran head on? We are no longer dealing with a fledgling revolutionary state in the early 80s, my friend, we are dealing with an industrializing power, with the potential to be a regional great power, in her own right.

@Daneshmand @Serpentine

Sorry I didn't read all of what you wrote(red the beginning though), it was a bit too long bro.
All i will say is that Iran just got lucky the U.S/U.K/West NATO picked Afghanistan then Iraq first. It could have easily been Iran instead of IRAQ. If that was the case, then the result would have been the same as the Iraq Invasion. i.e the regime/Military would have hold on for at most 2 months or so. For you should know Iran wasn't any better/stronger than Saddam's Iraq. If they were stronger than Iraq then they would have surely defeated Saddam's Iraq during the 8 years bloody war they fought losing millions of their citizens with no clear victory. By contrast it took the U.S/U.K/NATO led invasion only about 6 weeks to crush Saddam's 'MIGHTY' military that terrorized the middle east and its neighbors for decades. Never mind that U.S/U.K/NATO were fighting Saddam's Iraq thousands of miles from their neighborhood.lol

However, winning a war is different from holding on to that gain, Just like the U.S/U.K/NATO led invasion crushed Saddam's 'superpower' military in a matter of weeks, but they were unable to build on that gain to effectively lead the country to a peaceful transition of power/governance, which led to the emergence of several rebel groups/militias along with the guerrilla war that came along.

With all due respect only a very naive person will think the U.S and NATO doesn't have the capability to take on Iran militarily. I cant even believe i'm hearing this from you.
NICE ONE THOUGH.

Michael, power projection ability does not necessarily mean the will to use it is there. One's kinetic capability has to be governed, kept in check by regulatory processes in government and military. Naturally, we Japanese would like a diplomatic way of solving the issue, hopefully, to realize the peaceful reunification of Korea. Afterall, since the late 19th century, an independent and unified Korea, had ceased to exist.

Well, that's just Japan's foreign minister talking, nothing unexpected there.

 

[gambit]

There would be peace in this region if the American military occupation of Japan and S Korea were ended.

Actually, the US 'military occupation' in Asia kept the peace.

Kept it so good that the universe can see the difference...

 

[Aepsilons]

With all due respect only a very naive person will think the U.S and NATO doesn't have the capability to take on Iran militarily. I cant even believe i'm hearing this from you.
NICE ONE THOUGH.

What is my point here: The United States is functioning as a force inhibitor here , in preventing Iranian supply ships from providing strategic resupply to Houthi rebels , at the behest of the Saudi Government. But direct intervention against Iranian forces is evaded. As for naval force presence in the Strait of Hormuz, my friend, the EUNAFOR or NATO nav units that patrols that area are token forces, with rotational role. It is evident with the constant traffic , my friend.

The theme of limitation being central here. I would caution you to be evade in being naive in thinking that Iran is a mitigated threat , there is a DICHOTOMY , a vast one, between Iran and Iraq. Iraq being in no ways at par level with the strengths of Iran. It would be wise for you not to underestimate Tehran.

However, winning a war is different from holding on to that gain, Just like the U.S/U.K/NATO led invasion crushed Saddam's 'superpower' military in a matter of weeks, but they were unable to build on that gain to effectively lead the country to a peaceful transition of power/governance, which led to the emergence of several rebel groups/militias along with the guerrilla war that came along.

I would counter; the United States' decision to invade Iraq was a strategic failure. Its decision to invade Iraq did what? What did it attain? Did it inhibit international terrorism? Did it locate WMDs, the pretext for invasion in the first place? No it did not. In fact, my friend, the invasion of Iraq, and removal of Saddam from power led to a power vaccuum , that led to the furthering of Takfiri ideology in an already sectarian society. This interventionism in Iraq and then later in Syria have done nothing to stabilize this region, rather, have indirectly (tho some researchers would even claim directly) led to the genesis of rebellion in Syria, and the genesis of DAESH, ISIS.

However, winning a war is different from holding on to that gain, Just like the U.S/U.K/NATO led invasion crushed Saddam's 'superpower' military in a matter of weeks, but they were unable to build on that gain to effectively lead the country to a peaceful transition of power/governance, which led to the emergence of several rebel groups/militias along with the guerrilla war that came along.

Are you telling me that Afghanistan is stable now, my friend? I think we all know the answer to that. My English friend.

true. but they think they are the same country, unfortunately split into two. same applies to china. that was why china demanded us to withdraw troops from taiwan before restoring ties with us. same attitude. i guess it may be difficult for us military men to understand such sentiment.

They are both one and the same. Any Korean patriot will discern the difference between style of governance between Seoul and Pyongyang, but , ultimately, even the most ardent of South Korean patriots will declare North Korea and the Koreans of that state are fellow 'Han brothers'. Note: Koreans refer to their people as the 'Han people'. It has always been part of the Korean nationalist ideology , and manifest destiny processes to see the eventual reunification of their people and their land. Perhaps to foreign military strategists, who have contextual views to their own specific nation states and or military (US, Japan, China, Russia et al), but in the end, for the South Korean national paradigm --- the long term goal is eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula. In fact both North Korea and South Korea aim for National Reunifcation. This was manifested in the 2000 North South Joint Declaration of National Reunification, which is known in Hangul as 남북 공동선언 or [Nambuk Kongdong Sŏnŏn].

In the Korean View point, North and South Korean people are one and the same.