Pages:
Author

Topic: Count down to Iran invasion - page 17. (Read 41927 times)

sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 251
FirstBits: 168Bc
December 18, 2011, 12:52:32 AM
#52
Iraq plus Khuzestan Province and Kuwait would have been a major economic and military power under the strong, semi-secular and stable Ba'ath party.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 17, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
#51
Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.
Yeah, the U.S. concurrently arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s was indeed classic, but I'm not sure it did anyone much good long term. Dammit, they quit fighting before they had completely destroyed themselves, what's the fun in that?

On the other hand, getting the Iranians and the Israelis to smoke each other for good is an idea with legs.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 251
FirstBits: 168Bc
December 17, 2011, 04:18:37 PM
#50
Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
December 17, 2011, 02:55:13 PM
#49
looks like this prediction failed bigtime...

The funny thing is that OP is still convinced we are all idiots not to have believed his ravings.

Yes... I suppose those explosions at their missile and nuclear facilities were just industrial accidents. Love the childlike personal attacks, classy and quite convincing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/satellite-images-suggest-blast-obliterated-iran-military-base.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility-has-exploded-as-diplomatic-tensions-rise-between-the-west-and-tehran/story-e6frg6so-1226209996774

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/world/middleeast/iran-blast-kills-revolutionary-guards-commander-at-base.html?_r=1

(note: the first explosion happened just over a month after my OP)
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 17, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
#48

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S.

Dont confuse the propaganda with the reality. The US has been lobbying very hard and until very recently to get immunity for its military. After all thats happened since the "end" of the war, that was a bridge too far even for the Iraqi's, so they declined.  Thats the only reason US military is withdrawing, that it couldnt get a SOFA agreement that provided its soldiers with immunity.  Its not because the US wanted to, although of course thats how its presented.

Plan B is the Baghdad "embassy" with 5.000+ US soldiers and mercenaries pretending to be diplomatic security (and thereby being granted immunity).

I don't recall being propagandized on this point. I lived and served through the collective political retardation of Vietnam in the U.S., at that time undoing a mistake was something that no one could face because of the reality of the grotesque errors in judgment it acknowledged.

One of course would have clerks working furiously to insure our continued presence in Iraq right up until the point they failed. Otherwise the likes of such folks as the Project For A New American Century pinheads would throw a public fit, which they did anyway, but had no one to blame except those bad Iraqis who actually wanted to be able to enforce their own law as they see fit. How dare them  Wink

As for Plan B, it is a way to leave the door open for a return to imposing our imperial destiny on Iraq by leaving the U.S. with "assets" to protect there, and it throws a bone to the interventionists in the U.S. Consequently, we will need to be vigilant going forward, there are too many crazies who would have the U.S. back in the Iraq quagmire. We should find a general named Custer to put in charge, don't you think?

So, no one had to tell me anything about this, it was evidently from the start that it was a crafty political solution to undoing a hideous mistake. As I said before, a win-win for the Iraqis and for the U.S. that effectively neutralized the ill-tempered assholes who dragged us into the war on false premises.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 17, 2011, 06:05:14 AM
#47

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S.

Dont confuse the propaganda with the reality. The US has been lobbying very hard and until very recently to get immunity for its military. After all thats happened since the "end" of the war, that was a bridge too far even for the Iraqi's, so they declined.  Thats the only reason US military is withdrawing, that it couldnt get a SOFA agreement that provided its soldiers with immunity.  Its not because the US wanted to, although of course thats how its presented.

Plan B is the Baghdad "embassy" with 5.000+ US soldiers and mercenaries pretending to be diplomatic security (and thereby being granted immunity).
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 17, 2011, 02:19:54 AM
#46
I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

Pretty obvious isnt it? Short version: you remove a regime that doesnt take orders from  Washington (aka rogue states)  and replace it with a puppet regime (aka spreading democracy).  What else do you think separates the theocracy in Iran from the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and why one is considered a close ally and the other an evil empire. The other purpose is to keep military bases in the region to keep those regimes in check. And you send a rather clear message to the other countries.
Long version:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 16, 2011, 07:17:59 PM
#45
lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too.  The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason  - to take control of the commodity.
I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

lol - it depends on how cynical you are.  But, how much control do you think the locals had when they had been "saved" and then over-run.  In the last 20 years a lot of profits in the USA were as a result of rebuilding the infrastructure they blew up.  As for annexing another country, the approach that the locals are foreigners to the troops and contractors helps explain the relative value of life.  Bush ran an imperial dynasty, the Romans would have been proud (in their day, they attacked Carthage and North Africa for the corn).
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 16, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
#44
lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.
Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S. The Iraqis get their show of autonomy and the U.S. gets itself out of the single biggest and most expensive foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam. We should send them a thank you note with a nice gift, maybe one of these:

http://wonkette.com/458166/foreigners-delight-in-sarah-palin-pooping-on-nativity-set

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
December 16, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
#43
lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too.  The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason  - to take control of the commodity.
I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
December 16, 2011, 06:48:19 PM
#42
lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base American Palace in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.

FTFY
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 16, 2011, 06:43:31 PM
#41
lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
December 16, 2011, 04:37:40 PM
#40
looks like this prediction failed bigtime...

The funny thing is that OP is still convinced we are all idiots not to have believed his ravings.
member
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
December 16, 2011, 03:28:48 AM
#39
looks like this prediction failed bigtime...
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
December 01, 2011, 02:51:57 PM
#38
We should take away his passport and make sure he never leaves the USA.

I don't even know how I know this, but he's Canadian.

Makes me happy to not know that, or care.  Still, the US is a good dumping ground.  They have a show "America's got talent?" answer = no
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
December 01, 2011, 02:18:35 AM
#37
We should take away his passport and make sure he never leaves the USA.

I don't even know how I know this, but he's Canadian.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
November 30, 2011, 05:08:45 PM
#36
I forgot to ask, could we send Justin Bieber there?  Solve a few problems all at once.

Would that not be a crime against humanity?  Or do Iranian mullahs count as "enemy combatants?"

Yes, you are right.  We should take away his passport and make sure he never leaves the USA.  (damn good thing I'm not in the USA then)  Really, as long as he's not near where I am, that helps. 
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
November 30, 2011, 04:12:00 PM
#35
I forgot to ask, could we send Justin Bieber there?  Solve a few problems all at once.

Would that not be a crime against humanity?  Or do Iranian mullahs count as "enemy combatants?"
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
November 30, 2011, 03:03:14 PM
#34
I forgot to ask, could we send Justin Bieber there?  Solve a few problems all at once.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
November 30, 2011, 01:12:36 AM
#33
I don't have to trust anything to tell that they are ramping up for it. Do you have to trust a mugger to tell he is about to rob you? Also this is the PERFECT time (from a political scumbag POV) to have more war. There are lot of domestic issues flaring up internally in the US, the 2012 presidential campaign is ramping up, and the economy is failing.

This strategy only works when you don't have a highly unpopular and seemingly neverending war already happening.

Iran is a modern nation of 80 million people. These days, America only invades countries that can barely fight back. Smaller body bag totals for the U.S. equates to lower domestic pressure to end the war.

Quote
The alleged perpetrator has a history as an informant for the DEA. It wouldn't be the first time in history an attack was either crafted or allowed to happen in order to justify escalation into war. It is one of the oldest military tactics available,

You know what tactic is even older? Sabre rattling.
Pages:
Jump to: