Such as?Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah, they have the language and culture advantages for sure. I'd assume the main hurdles Iran would face would be financial and related to infrastructure.
I agree with your first assessment.san4 wrote:
I think Iran knows how to deal with challenges to state authority, and it does not involve saying "can't we all just get along?" They wouldn't hesitate to do exactly what Saddam did to keep the Sunnis in line.Turquoise wrote:
That makes sense. I just think that Iran will still have to worry about the Sunni extremists. I'm assuming most of the Iranian funded ones are Shiite.Don't forget about Iraqi oil. It sucks that the world depends on oil, but that is how it is for the moment. When Iran takes over in Iraq (directly or through proxies), they will control a gigantic amount of the world's oil supply. If Iran can get the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia to revolt (also Osama bin Laden's goal), they could end up basically holding the entire developed world hostage. Iraq matters because of oil, and Iran is going to win that prize.Turquoise wrote:
Either way, they can have Iraq. I never wanted America in charge of it in the first place.
The second assessment is problematic, because Sunnis greatly outnumber Shiites in Saudi Arabia. Also, we have military bases in Saudi Arabia. We're used to running Saudi Arabia at this point. Plus, Saudi Arabia has a lot more oil than Iraq.
Well, first, we have a lot more military equipment than Iran. Our technology is considerably better for our forces.Bubbalo wrote:
Such as?Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah, they have the language and culture advantages for sure. I'd assume the main hurdles Iran would face would be financial and related to infrastructure.
Aside from that, you have issues within Iran that are still being dealt with. Iran has widespread poverty, and the mountainous terrain already makes it difficult for the government to administer to the needs of its own people. When you figure an extra 25 million people in Iraq into the equation, you can see the logistical problem of suddenly becoming responsible for that much more.
Your advanced technology has, so far, proven of little benefit in Iraq. Further, the Iranian government doesn't need to administer to the needs of it's people: so long as they are isolated, they cannot strike back. If/when they take over Iraq, they don't just get 25 million extra people, they get a pre-existing bereaucracy they can work with, as well as infrastructure put in by the US so far.
Besides, even if it would be a problem for them to go in, they could always not: just leave it to collapse.
Besides, even if it would be a problem for them to go in, they could always not: just leave it to collapse.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-06 21:23:19)
True... Iran may leave Iraq just as desperate as we eventually will.Bubbalo wrote:
Your advanced technology has, so far, proven of little benefit in Iraq. Further, the Iranian government doesn't need to administer to the needs of it's people: so long as they are isolated, they cannot strike back. If/when they take over Iraq, they don't just get 25 million extra people, they get a pre-existing bereaucracy they can work with, as well as infrastructure put in by the US so far.
Besides, even if it would be a problem for them to go in, they could always not: just leave it to collapse.
eh, Persians... what r ya gonna do. Iran will be using their influence and force in an entirely different manner than a US presence would. In layman's no pussyfooting, just brute force. Hypothetical opinion of course.Turquoise wrote:
True... Iran may leave Iraq just as desperate as we eventually will.Bubbalo wrote:
Your advanced technology has, so far, proven of little benefit in Iraq. Further, the Iranian government doesn't need to administer to the needs of it's people: so long as they are isolated, they cannot strike back. If/when they take over Iraq, they don't just get 25 million extra people, they get a pre-existing bereaucracy they can work with, as well as infrastructure put in by the US so far.
Besides, even if it would be a problem for them to go in, they could always not: just leave it to collapse.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Oops, I actually didn't know that. I agree, the Shi'ites aren't going to topple the Saudi monarchy, even with Iran's help (and even if Bin Laden urged on his Saudi supporters at the same time). On the other hand, I think most Shi'ites are in eastern Saudi Arabia, where most of the oil is, and they caused a ruckus when Khomeini came to power. Perhaps Iran could stir them up again and just bite off that little piece of the country?Turquoise wrote:
The second assessment is problematic, because Sunnis greatly outnumber Shiites in Saudi Arabia. Also, we have military bases in Saudi Arabia. We're used to running Saudi Arabia at this point. Plus, Saudi Arabia has a lot more oil than Iraq.san4 wrote:
If Iran can get the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia to revolt (also Osama bin Laden's goal), they could end up basically holding the entire developed world hostage.
Well, probably not. Iran may just have to settle for Iraq's oil. The poor bastards.
kuwait is still on that map
Iran is most likely to wield influence over Iraq, and not really invade. IF Iran invade all hell would break loose. Israel would start bombing, Jordan would try to stay neutral, Syria wouldn't side with anyone, but would instigate Hezbollah attacks in Israel, and the whole world would suffer as oil prices peak and recession ensues. And I would blame the US for tipping the balance by removing Saddam and then just withdrawing and "training Iraqs forces for defense" like they did in Vietnam...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Cute.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Nevil Chamberlin.[RDH]Warlord wrote:
It's not the terrorist plan to "kill Americans". So killing US troops gives them no satisfaction.
What they want is for the US to get the f*** out of the area. Before we were there in force (Iraq war), the only way for them to try to get us out was to influence the American public by getting into the news. What better way than to hit something close to the US's heart than attacking their country?
What we need to do is stop pissing these guys off, and they'll stop attacking us. Listen to their demands. Get military bases out of the countries over there. Stop taking sides in conflicts over there over purely selfish reasons (oil).
acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
I personally like how Israel is cirlced in blue, while nothing else isn't.
I modified it a little.
I don't think nuking the Suez canal will help anyone. Actually......that would be pretty catastrophic.
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
Right on! +1Major_Spittle wrote:
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
CyrusTheVirus wrote:
Right on! +1Major_Spittle wrote:
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
Let's look at your plan. We carpet bomb....What???? You do realize the size or Iraq? How long, how often? Once we carpet bomb, what's left? How can you run a oil pumping station without electricity? That's one of the major problems now. Without carpet bombing. Once you carpet bomb, in flows the insurgents, yet again. I'm sure if the answer to this problem was as easy as you portray it, someone else would have thought of it earlier.Major_Spittle wrote:
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
On a positive note. I do agree with you on the immigration topic. I have a different solution. Send the immigrants to Iraq. Chances of them coming back with all their limbs are not good.
It's much better than the fence plan. If we send them back who is going to build the fence anyways?GATOR591957 wrote:
On a positive note. I do agree with you on the immigration topic. I have a different solution. Send the immigrants to Iraq. Chances of them coming back with all their limbs are not good.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Imo, part of the problem lies down to the fact that the West now lives in a fast world...we dont have time to do anything properly. If its less than 1.5Mbps internet access, we arent interested. Fast food. Quick solutions - the lot.
I think that that is whats happened in Iraq - the planning was so quick that they took fuck all into consideration and expected to win a war with a handful of troops.
If you ask me, the only way that we can truely "liberate" Iraq, is to have an army close to the size that we put out in WW2. Massive battalions that actually go out and fight the Insurgents, not just sit there, wait to be fired at and then return fire.
We need a proper military offensive, go out and actually fight the fuckers.
If we were to push through the country like we did in Europe against the Nazis, liberating town by town, village by village, hedgerow by hedgerow...then we might actually beat them.
Yes, you get massive casualties - but ffs, its a war. War has bullets. Bombs. Missiles. Shells. Expecting to come back with no casualties is, quite frankly, a pile of fantasising shite.
However, the main problem arises in that the Insurgents hide amongst the local population, and any non Islamic person on Islamic soil is an infidel - and they dont like us, Americans more so than anyone else (for numerous reasons - Guantanamo Bay certainly doesnt help). Its a guerilla war, and no army in the world is geared to fight against that kind of opposition, especially those who hide amongst the local civilians. We may take out 50 Insurgents, but 1 civilian casualty, and theres a massive enquiry as to why that civie got killed and then the person who pulled the trigger gets fucked over. You didnt have that problem in WW2 or any war prior to that, however, now, in the view of politicians - no civilian can die in war. Ever. Even if they are sat in the middile of a firefight and stick their head up, the whole battle should stop until they are behind cover again or dead. Just look at that ITV newscrew who were killed by American friendly fire. Caught in a crossfire and the British want the US soldiers tried for murder. Pathetic.
The whole situation is one big fuckup. We should have finished Afghanistan properly before moving onto Iraq - but, as per the Wests current nature, we did it too quickly.
I think that that is whats happened in Iraq - the planning was so quick that they took fuck all into consideration and expected to win a war with a handful of troops.
If you ask me, the only way that we can truely "liberate" Iraq, is to have an army close to the size that we put out in WW2. Massive battalions that actually go out and fight the Insurgents, not just sit there, wait to be fired at and then return fire.
We need a proper military offensive, go out and actually fight the fuckers.
If we were to push through the country like we did in Europe against the Nazis, liberating town by town, village by village, hedgerow by hedgerow...then we might actually beat them.
Yes, you get massive casualties - but ffs, its a war. War has bullets. Bombs. Missiles. Shells. Expecting to come back with no casualties is, quite frankly, a pile of fantasising shite.
However, the main problem arises in that the Insurgents hide amongst the local population, and any non Islamic person on Islamic soil is an infidel - and they dont like us, Americans more so than anyone else (for numerous reasons - Guantanamo Bay certainly doesnt help). Its a guerilla war, and no army in the world is geared to fight against that kind of opposition, especially those who hide amongst the local civilians. We may take out 50 Insurgents, but 1 civilian casualty, and theres a massive enquiry as to why that civie got killed and then the person who pulled the trigger gets fucked over. You didnt have that problem in WW2 or any war prior to that, however, now, in the view of politicians - no civilian can die in war. Ever. Even if they are sat in the middile of a firefight and stick their head up, the whole battle should stop until they are behind cover again or dead. Just look at that ITV newscrew who were killed by American friendly fire. Caught in a crossfire and the British want the US soldiers tried for murder. Pathetic.
The whole situation is one big fuckup. We should have finished Afghanistan properly before moving onto Iraq - but, as per the Wests current nature, we did it too quickly.
I would have carpet bombed Bagdahd. People would have got into cars and headed to Iraq and Syria for safety. They did it in Lebanon. WTF are you gonna do, hide in the desert. Over half the country is desert, where do you hide and how do you live. It is no vietnam. The fact is that the whole population could have been sent back to the stone age or to another country within a few months. Islam would have been forced to take care of their own. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria would had to pay their dues for supporting Terrorist/not helping the US get rid of Sadam. And yes it sure the hell would have sent a message to the people of that region.GATOR591957 wrote:
Let's look at your plan. We carpet bomb....What???? You do realize the size or Iraq? How long, how often? Once we carpet bomb, what's left? How can you run a oil pumping station without electricity? That's one of the major problems now. Without carpet bombing. Once you carpet bomb, in flows the insurgents, yet again. I'm sure if the answer to this problem was as easy as you portray it, someone else would have thought of it earlier.Major_Spittle wrote:
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
On a positive note. I do agree with you on the immigration topic. I have a different solution. Send the immigrants to Iraq. Chances of them coming back with all their limbs are not good.
As for electricity, are you stupid??? the country is full of OIL and Natural Gas. hmmm, how could the US forces get enough electricity in a pinch.
Your regard for human life is astoundingly low.
Srsly.
Srsly.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
As I've said to someone else here, I suggest you convert to Islam and join Al Quida. You'll fit right in, but you'll have to shift your hate toward Westerners instead of toward Muslims.Major_Spittle wrote:
It's never too late to carpet bomb. That was my original strategy for that region. Besides, if we carpet bomb and take over their oil we make money on the deal instead of losing billions. What are the negatives? Already everyone accuses the US of stealing their oil, killing innocent people, and promoting terrorism by our methods. The way I see it is that there will be no more torture allegations, just "Yep, we killed 'em and took their oil because they wanted to fight us more than the terrorists pouring into their country from Syria and Iran." This would also take care of the problem with Iran so we would no longer have to listen to Alabamabanjo and his threats (his own countrymen would silence him).
Our country is full of whimps that can't make the tough calls. It is easier for 'em to put our money and military into a meat grinder for years without getting satisfactory results.
This is the same reason Mexicans sneak back into our country after being caught and sent back to Mexico. Nobody is willing to fingerprint them the first time and tell them if caught again you will be sent back to Mexico again but with no legs to walk back across the border a third time. After all it is a decision they make, so give them a reason to make the right one.
Well, yes, I actually agree with you in your last paragraph......Turquoise wrote:
I actually agree with PureFodder. Invading Iraq has truly gotten the attention of the terrorists of the region. They attack our soldiers because they are sitting ducks, since flying all the way here is much more difficult and expensive.Spearhead wrote:
Pure. F*cking. Bullshit..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
As opposed to before 9/11 when attacks on American soil were like 5-6 a week?
The only reason there aren't attacks on American soil at the moment is because the Americans are providing the Iraqi insurgents a plentiful supply of Americans to attack 5 minutes down the road as opposed to having to travel halfway round the world and risk increased boarder security, the difficulty of arming yourself when you get there etc.
If we change this to how many attacks have we witnessed on Americans, we suddenly see how bad things have become.
The important thing to keep in mind is that most of these terrorists just want us out of Iraq. If we leave, they won't follow, because they'll be too busy killing other Iraqis.
It's just, I get so tired of people saying "The only reason we don't have any attacks HERE, is because our soldiers are over there".
It seems so far-fetched because according to Wiki, there were only two islamic terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11.Spearhead wrote:
Well, yes, I actually agree with you in your last paragraph......Turquoise wrote:
I actually agree with PureFodder. Invading Iraq has truly gotten the attention of the terrorists of the region. They attack our soldiers because they are sitting ducks, since flying all the way here is much more difficult and expensive.Spearhead wrote:
Pure. F*cking. Bullshit.
The important thing to keep in mind is that most of these terrorists just want us out of Iraq. If we leave, they won't follow, because they'll be too busy killing other Iraqis.
It's just, I get so tired of people saying "The only reason we don't have any attacks HERE, is because our soldiers are over there".
and the other WTC bombing.Wikipedia wrote:
March 9, 1977: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized by members of the militant African-American Muslim Hanafi sect and over 100 hostages taken. One bystander is shot and killed, and Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest. After a two-day standoff all hostages are released from the District Building (city hall), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-12-07 18:42:02)
Why is that?jonsimon wrote:
It seems so far-fetched because according to Wiki, there were only two islamic terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11.
Xbone Stormsurgezz