You guys have heard that there is such a thing that called sarcasm, haven't you? "Quick victorious war" was quoted for a reason. Difference of education systems is to blame, perhaps. I bet that combination of words is not often used in history lessons in American schools.
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="quick+victorious+war"
Is there a smiley for "sarcastic smartass" ?
Topic: Count down to Iran invasion - page 10. (Read 41927 times)
Just in case anyone missed this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D1FYvFUVXE
https://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/240001596
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D1FYvFUVXE
https://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/240001596
I'll just leave this here....
Iraq population 22 million and war took 8 years ending in defeat. Poor uneducated country with unpopular regime.
Just for the record, before the invasion and certainly before the iran-iraq war, Iraq had one of the, if not the best educational system in the region. It crumbled after the wars and sanctions, but literacy rate would still have been comparable to the US.
Not that Im sure what education has to do with this. Or even popularity of a regime. Its one thing to hate your regime, but quite another to welcome a foreign invader.
Anyway, I do agree by the time the US invaded Iraq, crippling sanctions had turned a once prosperous state in to a third world country. That part did work very well, and its being repeated now. The war with Iran is not fought with arms, instead an economic war is being waged.
Both EU and USA badly need a "quick victorious war" to distract the population from the upcoming economic collapse.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
Which country is better suited to attack than Iran for starting WW3?
Both EU and USA badly need a "quick victorious war" to distract the population from the upcoming economic collapse.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
Lets see
Iraq population 22 million and war took 8 years ending in defeat. Poor uneducated country with unpopular regime.
Afghanistan population 20 million and it looks to end in 2014 with a defeat. Poor uneducated country with a hated regime.
Iran. Population over 80 million. Educated population with a regime that is prepared for a long war.
I really can't see any Western politician taking on an invasion of Iran.
Both EU and USA badly need a "quick victorious war" to distract the population from the upcoming economic collapse.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.
" we're making war, hahaaa. ok, this is it, let's do this. wow, we're really doing it, finally!"
ROFL!
hehe, look at the guy not talking rubbing his hands at about 85s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eXprPEc26S4#t=82s
he might be thinking "
it's ONE HOUR LONG, dude! At least give us a hint or time.
Technically all those countries were invaded. Look it up. Pesky air strikes.
...snip...
As far as Obama starting wars try Syria, Yemen, Libya, as well as continued aggression in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They are even knocking on the doors to the border of Saudi Arabia. So I think he has his own wars to answer for as well. Additionally I don't know how you define a "successful" war but I am not sure there is a real definition for one. If by successful you mean killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people while breeding hatred for an entire nation and enriching a handful of corrupt individuals then yes, it was very successful.
As far as Obama starting wars try Syria, Yemen, Libya, as well as continued aggression in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They are even knocking on the doors to the border of Saudi Arabia. So I think he has his own wars to answer for as well. Additionally I don't know how you define a "successful" war but I am not sure there is a real definition for one. If by successful you mean killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people while breeding hatred for an entire nation and enriching a handful of corrupt individuals then yes, it was very successful.
Syria is not at war with the US and is not likely to be. If Assad falls, the al Qa'ida backed opposition will take power and no American president would want to be associated with that.
Yemen is not at war with the US and is not likely to be.
Libya was a typical French/British operation. They ran out of ammo after a week and the US carried on the air strikes. After it was over, Sarkozy claimed the credit and the "grateful" Libyans valdalised the British graveyards. If you want to call that a fiasco, I'm with you.
Obama inherited the Afpak mess and made it worse. announcing a "surge" and that the US would leave in 2014 must rate as the most schizoid policy announcement the world has ever seen.
So yeah, you're right. He will go on the list of presidents who lost wars.
I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...
Iran is really big. 4 times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians are educated and most of them are believers in the system. Given that the US has been defeated in Iraq and is in the process of being defeated in Afghanistan, a land invasion is really unlikely.
If the US could invade Iran and win something, of course the odds would shorten quickly. But right now, Iran would eventually win a guerilla war and neither Romney nor Obama will want to follow Bush into the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Just a few things...
1. I never said anything about ground invasion, or described in any way the type of invasion that would happen.
2. I never said it would be certain to be US or Israel (or both) to be the first
3. I never said it could be done successfully
That being said I would appreciate it if you would refrain from your usual of putting words into my mouth.
Also I don't know if you have noticed but Obama has already followed in the path of Bush with the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Additionally I think you mistake my discussion of the subject as support for it, and doing so would be incorrect. Try being a bit less confrontational if you are even able.
"Count down to Iran invasion" - be fair. Most people who read that would think it referred to invading Iran.
What war did Obama start and lose? He inherited the Iraq defeat but Bush had already committed to a full withdrawal. He inherited Afghanistan. You can't seriously say the US suffered a defeat in Libya.
I agree with you on the probability of conflict. My objection was always that the US elections would be out of the way first. Its you got confrontational about it...I merely pointed out that Obama has zero to boast about and that a war with Iran would guarantee his defeat in November.
The word "invasion" can mean a lot of things. Just because you assumed I meant ground troops marching in doesn't mean that was my intended definition. In all likelihood it will be an air strike anyway, or if there are ground troops is will be small spec ops teams (which have already been reported in Iran BTW). So if your argument is our troops have to be on the ground for an invasion, it has already happened.
As far as Obama starting wars try Syria, Yemen, Libya, as well as continued aggression in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They are even knocking on the doors to the border of Saudi Arabia. So I think he has his own wars to answer for as well. Additionally I don't know how you define a "successful" war but I am not sure there is a real definition for one. If by successful you mean killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people while breeding hatred for an entire nation and enriching a handful of corrupt individuals then yes, it was very successful.
I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...
Iran is really big. 4 times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians are educated and most of them are believers in the system. Given that the US has been defeated in Iraq and is in the process of being defeated in Afghanistan, a land invasion is really unlikely.
If the US could invade Iran and win something, of course the odds would shorten quickly. But right now, Iran would eventually win a guerilla war and neither Romney nor Obama will want to follow Bush into the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Just a few things...
1. I never said anything about ground invasion, or described in any way the type of invasion that would happen.
2. I never said it would be certain to be US or Israel (or both) to be the first
3. I never said it could be done successfully
That being said I would appreciate it if you would refrain from your usual of putting words into my mouth.
Also I don't know if you have noticed but Obama has already followed in the path of Bush with the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Additionally I think you mistake my discussion of the subject as support for it, and doing so would be incorrect. Try being a bit less confrontational if you are even able.
"Count down to Iran invasion" - be fair. Most people who read that would think it referred to invading Iran.
What war did Obama start and lose? He inherited the Iraq defeat but Bush had already committed to a full withdrawal. He inherited Afghanistan. You can't seriously say the US suffered a defeat in Libya.
I agree with you on the probability of conflict. My objection was always that the US elections would be out of the way first. Its you got confrontational about it...I merely pointed out that Obama has zero to boast about and that a war with Iran would guarantee his defeat in November.
I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...
Iran is really big. 4 times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians are educated and most of them are believers in the system. Given that the US has been defeated in Iraq and is in the process of being defeated in Afghanistan, a land invasion is really unlikely.
If the US could invade Iran and win something, of course the odds would shorten quickly. But right now, Iran would eventually win a guerilla war and neither Romney nor Obama will want to follow Bush into the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Just a few things...
1. I never said anything about ground invasion, or described in any way the type of invasion that would happen.
2. I never said it would be certain to be US or Israel (or both) to be the first
3. I never said it could be done successfully
That being said I would appreciate it if you would refrain from your usual of putting words into my mouth.
Also I don't know if you have noticed but Obama has already followed in the path of Bush with the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Additionally I think you mistake my discussion of the subject as support for it, and doing so would be incorrect. Try being a bit less confrontational if you are even able.
And I'm buying a bike next month.
I have to ask: bicycle or harley?
Neither, I bought an old Honda ST90. Totally off topic, but I thought I would let you know.
http://i.imgur.com/UWHMJ.jpg
In other news, I've been keeping current on Iran, and I feel that things have not calmed down between them, and everyone else who's trying to push them right now. I can't see it ending well...
I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...
Iran is really big. 4 times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians are educated and most of them are believers in the system. Given that the US has been defeated in Iraq and is in the process of being defeated in Afghanistan, a land invasion is really unlikely.
If the US could invade Iran and win something, of course the odds would shorten quickly. But right now, Iran would eventually win a guerilla war and neither Romney nor Obama will want to follow Bush into the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...
I'm still waiting for a false flag... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBXx6PCWdHs <- Ron Paul: "...there may be a flase flag incident where some ship goes down and it will be used to accelerate the next war."
Jump to: