Note to Fillmoe... THIS is how you troll the Political Forum.
The animated recreation had the quality of those phantom mobile chemical labs back in 03. Still waiting to see animated Iranians holding little vials of white powder. The GOP is always attacking Hollywood, but they sure do exploit the use of drama. Time to break out the "mushroom cloud" fear bomb.
Not advocating invasion here; but you are insane if you believe that.
The air campaign alone would reduce the will of the Iranians to fight; the ground invasion would be a mop-up exercise. Iranians would resist for a short while, but would soon understand the absolute inevitability of defeat, and would quit, or surrender; just like the first gulf war. BTW: predictions such as yours were ALL OVER the place, in fact it was conventional wisdom about the invasion of Iraq b4 the Gulf War. The main reason given? Because Iraq had defeated Iran, and were experienced, hardened vets. Didn't work out so well for them, and it wouldn't for Iran either.
The US military is BUILT to invade, take ground, kill, maim, destroy, etc... THEY are not built to police a country; they would love to fight a REAL war, compared to what they're doing now, I'm betting.
to 101A's post
sounds like what many "experts" said about Iraq
And that's EXACTLY what happened....TWICE.
that and its not like 500 american lives and thousandS more Iranian dead would be worth it
OK, go ahead, let the US military bust up another Islamic country.
Then what? More "insane" like we have in Iraq?
The Iranian military is larger and much more equipped than al-Quaida and the Taleban in Afghanistan, the "allies" still have not shut them down after 5 years of trying, they keep "resurging".
The Iranians resisted the Saddam/Iraq attack very well. At that point, Iranians were much weaker than now, totally surprised, and still trying to get Iran re-organized after their revolution a couple years earlier.
Iran is 25+ years down the road and has been spending $Bs in Russian, China, and NK on weapons as well as building their own, and motivated as ever to defend their country, something the Iraqis under Saddam never were.
What's insane is assuming invading Iran would cause the US few casualites AND ignoring what to do with Iran after our badass mlitary busts it up and "owns" the pieces, like it does now Iraq.
We've already had too many Macho Man jerk-off, VN-war-evading, myopic, incompetent, Strangelovian assholes in the Exec invading countries with NO plans for the post invasion, and no proof that such invasion advances US interests in any way.
The military is ed in Iraq and to no benefit to the USA, and no benefit to the Iraqis or anybody else in the M/E.
The first Gulf war had the clearly defined objective of kicking Iraqis out of Kuwait, and dozens of countries willing to help and/or pay ("coalition of the billing"). Mission Accomplished.
What's the objective of invading Iran?
What's the plan for after invading Iran?
And would an overwhelming majority of the US people, now dead set against dubya and how he ihas ed up Iraq, support invading yet another country that is no threat to the USA?
A massive bombing campaign over Iran would kill 10s of 1000s of Iranians and inflame and recruit jihadists even more than Iraq did.
dubya's problem is that he has zero credibilty with his own party outside of the crazy hard right. dubya's advantage is that he has a nutty Strangelove as veep who will do whatever the he wants, who won't even bother to "sell" invading Iraq to the US and the world.
Last edited by boutons_; 01-31-2007 at 02:38 PM.
have we talked about what a war with Iran would mean on the homefront, inside our borders?, the people of this country would be regulated upon like no other and we and our children would be ed forever on
Please expand on what you mean by "regulated upon..", because I dont understand what you mean in the slightest.
in travel and movement, in ID cards, in patriot act IVs, OnStar*s, war corporations gaining even more power, government secrecy
Jihadists arent going anywhere any time soon. Sure, another offensive in their land would drive supply of said whackos thru the roof, but at what point does this even matter?
It is without a doubt, no question, that the US military could wipe out Iran's military, military capability and current leadership in under 100 days. So lets not argue that (the casualty rate would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-1 or 1000-1, that may be a bit under).
What are the reprecussions? The obvious of course. But I am really starting to not care at all WTF those -jobs think anyway. We want what their country sits on, not the people treading over it. We are willing to pay. Make nice and everyone wins.
I just dont care about the middle east or the people in it. To blindly live your life according to some religious book...and not just your life, but your country's life and everyone in it....I just dont respect that. Never will. Yet I still believe in "Live and let live" to a degree, but not at the sacrifice of basic human rights and equality. Raped women and gays being executed/lynched is intolerable.
But its a double standard really. The US picks and chooses who it will enforce such moral standards upon, so I guess thats a weak argument.
Bah, it....I just dont like the Middle East at all. em. I will only have a problem if the US decides to Occupy....barring that, I could care less what the President and his/her cronies come up with. Deal with them, leave them alone...whatever.
They don't "all" blindly live their life based on a religious book. It's leaders of countries that use religion as a tool to pretend that their actions are Godly. Pretend to be acting from the wishes of their lord. All horse .
Regardless of cir stance, such things were inevitable. Paper money is going the way of the dinosaur yet probably not in my lifetime or my children's.
If you mean travel in your own country, I would disagree.
If you mean travel to other countries, then I would agree.
But again, that was inevitable.
The future, in my opinion, is bleak regardless of current events. Whether we wish to accelerate the downfall, or prolong the inevitable has no bearing on anyone alive today (in my opinion).
Ahhh, I would disagree. Why do middle eastern people turn to their local religious leaders in every bad situation, then? Certainly cant blame the government level leadership for that, can you?
They werent told to follow, they choose to follow. Whether thats a product of the enviroment or not, I am not sure. But when hits the fan in the middle east, one thing is for sure, religious leaders (clerics and Omans, I think?) become the movers and shakers.
Unless Bush is thinking about declaring a military dictatorship so he can get the necessary troops without going through Congress, the idea of an Iran war is stupid.
Who here actually thinks he could get authorization unless Iran is all but fueling missiles aimed at Tel Aviv? Or unless Cheney has a suitcase nuke set off in Grand Central Station to blame on Tehran?
You realize we are talking about Iran -- not Iraq, right?The air campaign alone would reduce the will of the Iranians to fight; the ground invasion would be a mop-up exercise. Iranians would resist for a short while, but would soon understand the absolute inevitability of defeat, and would quit, or surrender; just like the first gulf war.
Why do you think Iran resorted to terrorism in the first place? They learned from their war with Iraq that they could have their asses handed to them in open warfare. And it's disturbingly hilarious to see you learned absolutely nothing from Afghanistan or Iraq. So we go and "mop up" with another smaller-than-necessary-to-really occupy-a-country force. What then? Sit around and get killed by terrorists again, who this time don't have the inconvenience of fighting other factions in their country in addition to us?
Brilliant!
In the current atmosphere in this country, I don't think that would do it.
Easy ES. Fudging veracity of information, when you ultimately believe that information in correct is one thing. Wagging the dog by killing thousands of your own citizens is quite another. Or are you borrowing Dan's shiny hat?
Their choices are made for them "or else". That's what happens when politics, religion and sects rule the hallmark of hatred. It's live or die, it's protect your loved ones or watch them vanquish. It's the mixture of politics and religion that supplies the weapons and fuel for fighting. Religious leaders are the sources that aquire the weapons, that is why people turn to them. You must take a side to have a chance for survival. The goal shrinks to protecting your family.
Took the quote out of context, CD. , in that post I state that the US military is NOT good at occupation and/or policing. I never said an invasion of Iran would be clean. I said the United States Ground Invasion vs. the Iranian Army would be an unfair fight - that military v. military would be lopsided, and over very quickly - and that that action would not result in 10's of thousands of American lives. An occupation would be a different story. I AM NOT in favor of an invasion of Iran.
Sorry, your post sounded like Wolfowitz "cakewalk" talk. I just remember the reports of human wave attacks from Iran and I shudder to think what they might have in store for us if we choose to occupy their country.
If the Scooter trial gets real close to dubya and head, I wouldn't be surprised if they did some to Iran to deflect attention.
head's notes shown in the trial today could be interpreted as dubya being in on sliming/swift-boating Wilson and outing Plame.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
dubya/ head/rove have already lied their way into one war.
They are ruthless mother ers.
They're stuck now with the rep for losing Iraq.
All this Repug and repeated lying makes WH blowjobs totally harmless (as they always were).
Last edited by boutons_; 02-01-2007 at 09:35 AM.
The farfetchedness of that scenario is meant to underscore the unlikelihood of rallying up support for an Iran war.
Although false-flag terrorism is hardly unheard of. In 1961-62, JFK's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was advocating setting off bombs in downtown D.C. and Miami, shooting down commercial airliners, and even blowing up John Glenn's rocket on takeoff -- all so it could be blamed on Castro to justify overthrowing him in Cuba.
Senator Al Gore Sr. pressured Kennedy to get rid of that guy. JFK complied, and put him in charge of NATO instead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
