Spot on, Pericles, as usual.

Arjay,

Notice how quiet the Swedes are ? Hmmmmm ? Devilishly cunning, to wait for the players to exhaust themselves and then step in as the 'neutral' saviours. Give it some thought.

I love your way of arguing, Arjay: while CTs [conspiracy theorists] have been warning of a US invasion of Iran for many years, it hasn't happened yet, perhaps for the reasons you suggest, that China and Russia (and India as well, perhaps) would be peeved.

So you posit that:

IF the US did invade Iran, and

IF they used nuclear weapons,

THEN Russia and China would get involved, which would

THEN lead to 'all-out war'. With the entire West, presumably.

Frankly, I suspect that this is more likely (but still unlikely for a while): after successful revolutions are well under-way across the Arab world, the people of Iran may be encouraged to rise up again and overthrow the reactionary theocracy, at great human cost.

When your first IF occurs, Arjay, I'll take some notice :)

Joe

Noone needs any more of an excuse than has already been provided by Iran in order to justify invading it, whether legally, morally or whatever. Iran has just been put in the "little too hard" basket for the moment (we may go there in the future).

There are problems with the level of consideration being played with here. The EU, like Russia, like the USA, like China, like India, needs a guaranteed source of oil. The EU owns the Mediterranean Sea (and by default, North Africa) by virtue of its overwhelming military capacity in the region. The Russian's have oil pipelines being built in the *-stan ex-Soviet States. The USA/Japan & Australia have the Timor Gap oil (Timor Leste can't do much about it except turn to Indonesia for help) and the Saudi oilfields. China has already done deals (in competition with the Russians) with the ex-Soviet States. India and the USA are competing for the Southern Pakistan (Baluchi) fields (if India wins those, Iran will be in all sorts).

Russia and China are also looking at Iran, they are blocked (for the most part) from controlling the Arab oilfields (by virtue of Yankee Imperialism), so it looks like we may end up all going to war, like domino's over the balancing act (same way we did about this time last Century) between the various power blocks. Charming thought isn't it? Instead of Monarch's we'll be lead to war over the falling out of various Nation's Companies.

Like the Russian soldier said "... we need a revolution, but we'll also need a good Tsar." As each group outstrip the capacity of their own Countries, they look elsewhere, then comes the scrabble that goes BANG, then of course, we all fall down.

Could all those breathlessly declaring that the US is only in it for the oil, please explain how the cessation of Libya's oil flow has benefited the US?

Could they further please explain how the US will steal all this oil, when they are a backseat partner in the intervention, after Britain and France, and NONE of three intends to put troops on the ground?

And Ludwig seems to be able to tell which dictators are good or bad, depending upon how much they hate the US. Of course, we should ignore that fact that Gaddafi is smashing Misratah with B21 Grad missile trucks, only one of which can ripple fire 40, 200lb projectiles, into the civillian populace from a distance of 10kms, in one second.

Good Dictator? Are you mentally ill?

His people went to the streets to protest and he tried to brutalise them into acquisence. Regardless of what you think of america, Gaddafi's actions are indefensible. To defend him shows just what an apologist you are for ANYONE who has a bone to pick with the US. Next you'll be telling us that Mugabe and Kim Jong Il are just misunderstood fellows, who are really 'GOOD DICTATORS' unjustly maligned.

I'm staggered that any US hater could even put those two words into a sentence. GOOD DICTATOR.

REALLY?

Loudmouth, war is a racket and it is totally unnecessary.The greatest war mongerer is the USA's/European Corporatocracy.It has the track record of unnecessary nukes on Japan,wars with North Korea,Kosovo,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan and now Libya.It also interfers with the politics and finance of dozens of countries around the planet.So choose,peace or psychopathic nut jobs

PaulL, you can't seriously be saying Kim is a bad bloke? He's just a little sensitive about his hair (can you blame him?)...

Qaddaffi made too many enemies over too long a period and the EU has now jumped in (as the good guy) to reap the rewards. No harm, no foul, they specifically recognised the rebels as the legitimate leadership first, thus complying with the letter of International Law. As they have strictly complied with the letter thereof, they are entitled to act as they are (whereas others have not - they cannot beat the EU in a fight over North Africa).

The Suez Canal is safe, the people have won (not very much) in Egypt. Then again, Georgia was beaten badly in a punch-up over Azerbajainian oil (the Georgian's wanted to sell it to the EU), with Russia able to project just enough force on its border to prevent the EU/NATO protecting them. The Ivory Coast is another one of interest mainly because of location, but also due to gold (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iv.html), which is increasingly popular (for that reason I'd be half expecting the Dutch to try and get a vote going in Irian Jaya under UN auspices).

Nigeria, Venezuela & Algeria (http://www.economywatch.com/international-organizations/organization-of-petroleum-exporting-country.html) remain interesting. The EU is the only realistic future (and of course, past) owner of Algeria unless someone wants to play a long way from home. Note however the Countries not on that list, Australia/Timor Leste (ex-Indonesia of course), the USA itself and several others (North Sea/Brunei for instance). Venezuela is another interesting prospect, Brazil/Argentina have to be alive to the need for supplies close to home, but have they any prospect of controlling it? Nigeria? I would almost have to say that is likely to go to India/USA, it is in the Indian Ocean, a long way from anywhere and only the USA & India field Carriers in that region.

What amazes me is the absurdly shortsighted conspiracy theorists, they can see the conflict is about oil, but unless they can link the USA/Israel to it, it isn't happening or some-such nonsense.

Arjay,

Not a very long list :( I would add: Greece (late forties), Guatemala (1954), Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, perhaps Nicaragua and Lebanon.

But I would subtract: Kosovo, North Korea, Afghanistan - all necessary against aggression; Pakistan - not at war with it yet; and Libya - supporting the people, not its dictator.

It's a complicated world, Arjay. And there is more than one way to get oil cheap.

By the way, I was driving down South Road in peak-hour traffic and went past 'Arjay Uniforms'. Maybe there are a lot of you around, a well-organised organisation of conspiracy theorists ? At least, in Adelaide ? It doesn't bear thinking about ;

Joe