I never suggested the US would act like Iran insurgents, I just asked what the US would do in such situation.JG1567JG wrote:
I voted bad analogy. It would be a good analogy if we sent our troops into mexico dressed like every other Mexican in Mexico and had them live amongst the Mexicans in their homes and do their fighting from behind the Mexican citizens. I have a feeling that we would go into Mexico flying the United States of Americas flag and all our soldiers would be wearing uniforms so people could tell who was who.
Poll
What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?
| The US should get involved and help its neighbor | 32% | 32% - 18 | ||||
| US should get involved, this could be a menace to US | 10% | 10% - 6 | ||||
| Getting involved could be considered insurgency | 9% | 9% - 5 | ||||
| Mexico is another country, it's their problem | 9% | 9% - 5 | ||||
| This analogy sucks big time | 38% | 38% - 21 | ||||
| Total: 55 | ||||||
And I told you.sergeriver wrote:
I never suggested the US would act like Iran insurgents, I just asked what the US would do in such situation.JG1567JG wrote:
I voted bad analogy. It would be a good analogy if we sent our troops into mexico dressed like every other Mexican in Mexico and had them live amongst the Mexicans in their homes and do their fighting from behind the Mexican citizens. I have a feeling that we would go into Mexico flying the United States of Americas flag and all our soldiers would be wearing uniforms so people could tell who was who.
I never accused you of being sympathic. My question was the same as ATG - why? And now you have finally answered it.sergeriver wrote:
It gets boring when most people think you are trying to do something you are not, and judge you instead of answering an easy question. Btw, thanks for getting the point.Pubic wrote:
I believe sergeriver isn't trying to make anyone sympathise with Iran's motivation for backing the insurgents, but to understand some of their motives.
Just for the record, I don't like Iran at all, in fact they are responsible for the two bombings here in Argentina during the last decade.Pug wrote:
I never accused you of being sympathic. My question was the same as ATG - why? And now you have finally answered it.sergeriver wrote:
It gets boring when most people think you are trying to do something you are not, and judge you instead of answering an easy question. Btw, thanks for getting the point.Pubic wrote:
I believe sergeriver isn't trying to make anyone sympathise with Iran's motivation for backing the insurgents, but to understand some of their motives.
"What If USA Had Invaded Irak(n)?"
What if Mexico invaded the US... oh wait nvm.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No reason to be mysterious 24/7 serge - I find dodging a direct question particularly annoying...but you know that already...sergeriver wrote:
Just for the record, I don't like Iran at all, in fact they are responsible for the two bombings here in Argentina during the last decade.Pug wrote:
I never accused you of being sympathic. My question was the same as ATG - why? And now you have finally answered it.sergeriver wrote:
It gets boring when most people think you are trying to do something you are not, and judge you instead of answering an easy question. Btw, thanks for getting the point.
I know it, thanks. Btw, the quote in your sig is from Platoon.Pug wrote:
No reason to be mysterious 24/7 serge - I find dodging a direct question particularly annoying...but you know that already...sergeriver wrote:
Just for the record, I don't like Iran at all, in fact they are responsible for the two bombings here in Argentina during the last decade.Pug wrote:
I never accused you of being sympathic. My question was the same as ATG - why? And now you have finally answered it.
Good news: Iran’s nuclear bunkers probably totally impenetrable
I say Psshh.. let them think that.I designed a 2”x2” concrete cube with a compressive strength of 16,000 psi [pounds per square inch] at 28-days, a relatively high strength as standard concrete is on the order of 3,000 psi, typically. Now, The University of Tehran made several cubes between 50,000 to 60,000 psi, and possible stronger! I thought the aggregate to be made from quartz, and I also remember some steel fibers in the mix. These cubes exploded at failure, finally damaging the compression machine on the third or fourth cube (that machine was substantial, made for much larger samples). So, keep in mind this is unreinforced concrete (save the steel fibers) at an early age. Concrete becomes stronger, sometimes by orders of magnitude, over time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Heres a question for all of you. If you haven't already, go watch an 80s movie called 'Red Dawn'.
Now tell me. Are the main characters terrorists or freedom fighters?
No, seriously, if you haven't already then go watch Red Dawn. Political discussions aside its a fucking awesome movie, one of my top 5 faves!
Now tell me. Are the main characters terrorists or freedom fighters?
No, seriously, if you haven't already then go watch Red Dawn. Political discussions aside its a fucking awesome movie, one of my top 5 faves!
remeber, Iran and Iraq have had a much more turbulent recent history than the United States and Mexico. better question would be: What if Iran invaded Russia?
it would have been a better analogy if you had asked if Venezuela invaded Mexico. Still a great question though.
So what your saying is that Iran is justified in opposing us in Iraq because they are neighbors?
Umm you guys the analogy is mostly derived via proximity. Not so much feasibility -- Iran invades Mexico for reasons they deem necessary regardless of world opinion -- same as Iraq and US = comparison
Iran blames the U.S. for fomenting disruption in the new installed government -- same as Iraq and US = comparison.
Response by US via supporting dissident groups (oh we love those) legitimate? -- YES OR NO -- If yes welcome to logic. If No welcome to the neocon mind set .
Noam pretty much rapes people via historical comparisons -- which the article did a good job at -- and then asks you whether if the tables were turned would they still be acceptable. Consequently we are not on any sort of moral high ground so I would suggest that this comparison is rather accurate.
Iran blames the U.S. for fomenting disruption in the new installed government -- same as Iraq and US = comparison.
Response by US via supporting dissident groups (oh we love those) legitimate? -- YES OR NO -- If yes welcome to logic. If No welcome to the neocon mind set .
Noam pretty much rapes people via historical comparisons -- which the article did a good job at -- and then asks you whether if the tables were turned would they still be acceptable. Consequently we are not on any sort of moral high ground so I would suggest that this comparison is rather accurate.
Oh my goodness...Chomsky.
/fail
/fail
I believe the article is trying to draw on the hypocrisies of our statements against a state via speculative evidence and due to our lack of giving a rats as when we supported Iraq during Iran-Iraq war and our support of the Taleban whom Iranian's despised and had on more than one occasion fought cross border battles against.TrollmeaT wrote:
So what your saying is that Iran is justified in opposing us in Iraq because they are neighbors?
US = Support Taleban = ok
US = Support Iraq during Iran-Iraq = ok
Iran = Support of Hezzbollah = not good
Iran = Support of Insurgency = not good
Either we start practicing what we preach or we stop pretending like we give a shit about International Law and do as we please -- hence welcoming the new world super raper .
I find it funny you mention Chom serge, since you are a Clinton fanboi.
"Albright knew, of course, that Clinton had a similar doctrine. The Clinton doctrine advocated "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interests, such as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," without even the pretexts that Bush and Blair devised. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush’s NSS. But the more expansive Clinton doctrine was barely even reported. It was presented with the right style, and implemented less brazenly. "
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm
"Albright knew, of course, that Clinton had a similar doctrine. The Clinton doctrine advocated "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interests, such as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," without even the pretexts that Bush and Blair devised. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush’s NSS. But the more expansive Clinton doctrine was barely even reported. It was presented with the right style, and implemented less brazenly. "
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm
not the same becuase the US gets along with mexico. Iran and Iraq dont. iran would not come in to save the day of their hated neighbor.Fen321 wrote:
Umm you guys the analogy is mostly derived via proximity. Not so much feasibility -- Iran invades Mexico for reasons they deem necessary regardless of world opinion -- same as Iraq and US = comparison
Iran blames the U.S. for fomenting disruption in the new installed government -- same as Iraq and US = comparison.
Response by US via supporting dissident groups (oh we love those) legitimate? -- YES OR NO -- If yes welcome to logic. If No welcome to the neocon mind set .
Noam pretty much rapes people via historical comparisons -- which the article did a good job at -- and then asks you whether if the tables were turned would they still be acceptable. Consequently we are not on any sort of moral high ground so I would suggest that this comparison is rather accurate.
I never said I agreed in everything with Clinton, but I think he was a much better president than Bush. And I'm using Chomsky's article because I find his analogy very appropriate in this case. Given the facts, I still admire Clinton, and I think there's no way his doctrine was more expansive than Bush's NSS.usmarine2005 wrote:
I find it funny you mention Chom serge, since you are a Clinton fanboi.
"Albright knew, of course, that Clinton had a similar doctrine. The Clinton doctrine advocated "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interests, such as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," without even the pretexts that Bush and Blair devised. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush’s NSS. But the more expansive Clinton doctrine was barely even reported. It was presented with the right style, and implemented less brazenly. "
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm
The idea that Iran would invade Mexico (even stated as an analogy) is too ludicrous to contemplate, so I'm going with "analogy sucks."
I'll credit the US, Mexico and China having a huge tank battle with the anti-christ and his Nod-uniformed goons (Omega Code 2, I think) as a far more realistic scenario.
I'll credit the US, Mexico and China having a huge tank battle with the anti-christ and his Nod-uniformed goons (Omega Code 2, I think) as a far more realistic scenario.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-14 05:43:31)