The Goat Pen

crashcourse wrote:eventually the iranian younger generation will take care of the mullah and ruling class of iran

and iranian leaders with us on the border will have to be very careful as the uprising reignite as they will again someday

the way we are chasing kaddafi around after taking out ben laden and saddm in the last 10 years I think iranian leadership will think twice about brutally taking out ther own people

the seeds are planted

true but we are picking and choosing - look at Syria

I was actually wondering about the impact of literacy on "Arab Spring" nations and my thought would be the more literate the country, the more likely you would see traction on the revolution issue. It's not so cut and dry, however...

Illiteracy...M.........F

Syria.......9.3.........17.8
Yemen....27..........65
Egypt......12.1........19.2
Libya.......7.6.........28
Tunisia....1.9.........4.2
Iran........2.9.........3.9

Iran's literacy rate was equally impressive and shocking. These numbers are for individuals over 15 and younger than 30, but I would expect that demographic to be the engine for social and political change.

Iran would be a cakewalk for our military. We don't attack them because of the financial cost and our nation lacks the political will to be involved in a 4th warzone theater, simultaneously.

I definitely agree with the second part and generally agree with the first part. Some aspects of the campaign may be problematic but overall, no.

"Iran would be a cakewalk for our military."

I wish you'd cakewalk your dumb ass to Iran right now and spout your stupid shit to them...

innocentbystander wrote:

Fifer wrote:

Dora wrote:>Saudi Arabia has made if very clear if anyone is going to attack Iran then it must be Israel as that gives their Shiites someone else to focus on aside from a US-cozy Saudi Royal family.

Well, according to Wikileaks, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, & Bahrain all urged the US to attack Iran. The Saudi king referred to it as 'cutting the head off the snake'.

Iran is a nation of 100 million people. It's bigger thn Germany, France, and Great Britian. It would take an army of 10 million to conquer and occupy a nation that size. To build a military big enough would mean a draft, which send the youth of American into a revolt that would make the sixties look tame. The casualties would make Viet Nam look like a bar room brawl. To attack Iran and fight a long term war of occupation would be national suicide. We just don't have the means, financially, militarly, or politically for a war of that magnitude.

No.

Iran has 78,000,000 people. You are paying it's government and military the same respect you would a 1st world nation. Don't do that. Iran is 3rd world with 3rd world military technology.

Baghdad fell in 4 weeks. Iraq cost the United States just under 3000 lives over a span of eight years, 2900 of those lives AFTER we raised the US flag in their capital. We have a veteran Army and Marine Corps (led by battle hardened veteran officers) that knows how to handle itself exactly, PRECISELY, in fighting Islamic militants in both flat desert ground and mountainous terrain. We have troops garrisoned on either side of Iran.

Iran would be a cakewalk for our military. We don't attack them because of the financial cost and our nation lacks the political will to be involved in a 4th warzone theater, simultaneously.

No war is a cakewalk. Both sides thought the Civil War would be cakewalk. Both sides in World War I thought it would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years and 30 million dead later, it was whole lot more. As a military father, the last thing in the world I want is Gold Star on my front door and on the back windshield of my car.

Fifer wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

Fifer wrote:Iran is a nation of 100 million people. It's bigger thn Germany, France, and Great Britian. It would take an army of 10 million to conquer and occupy a nation that size. To build a military big enough would mean a draft, which send the youth of American into a revolt that would make the sixties look tame. The casualties would make Viet Nam look like a bar room brawl. To attack Iran and fight a long term war of occupation would be national suicide. We just don't have the means, financially, militarly, or politically for a war of that magnitude.

No.

Iran has 78,000,000 people. You are paying it's government and military the same respect you would a 1st world nation. Don't do that. Iran is 3rd world with 3rd world military technology.

Baghdad fell in 4 weeks. Iraq cost the United States just under 3000 lives over a span of eight years, 2900 of those lives AFTER we raised the US flag in their capital. We have a veteran Army and Marine Corps (led by battle hardened veteran officers) that knows how to handle itself exactly, PRECISELY, in fighting Islamic militants in both flat desert ground and mountainous terrain. We have troops garrisoned on either side of Iran.

Iran would be a cakewalk for our military. We don't attack them because of the financial cost and our nation lacks the political will to be involved in a 4th warzone theater, simultaneously.

No war is a cakewalk. Both sides thought the Civil War would be cakewalk. Both sides in World War I thought it would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years and 30 million dead later, it was whole lot more. As a military father, the last thing in the world I want is Gold Star on my front door and on the back windshield of my car.

Both sides in the US Civil War had nearly similar military technology. Air power played no part so sheer numbers of dead on the ground (war of attrition) were the result of both sides thinking they would win. One side won because it had twice the numbers of the other side plus it had a real navy. That was basically it.

World War I was fought (mostly) in Europe between first world nations, the "Great Powers." None had any technological advantages over the other (save Germany's vast technological advantage over imperial Russia, which is why Russia got its ass handed to them by the Huns.) None of these nations had previously fought OTHER NATIONS where their enemy also employed machine guns and artillery. So they had nothing to compare the Great War to from a tactics standpoint.

No one wants a gold star on the front door, but you need to unlearn your WWII thinking of near technological equality.

I'd like the nuke idea better if one "accidentally" goes astray and hits IBs house.

Speaking of military...

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmak ... table=true

Once, over dinner, I asked him what it's like to have the entire U.S. Army after you, and he thought for a moment and said slowly, "It's like I'm carrying a heavy rock in my backpack." This is as close to introspection as McDowell gets. Most of the time, if you ask why he did it, why he refused his command and fled his country, he'll just shrug his shoulders and say, "I couldn't do it anymore—it was wrong." By it, of course, he means a lot of things: the army, the war, the orders he received; the price he's paid, and the even bigger price to come. But it's the things McDowell doesn't say which make his story so perplexing: the things he's never said before; the things no one ever asked; the things that, when his orders came down, left him with no other way to protest except his suitcase and his feet.

Go nukes

And now a word from our sponsor...



"You see, the idea is to shove it up their sandy asses before they get too full of themselves. Shove it up there nice and deep so that the bastards can't even scream out for Allah."

Hizzy III wrote:And now a word from our sponsor...



"You see, the idea is to shove it up their sandy asses before they get too full of themselves. Shove it up there nice and deep so that the bastards can't even scream out for Allah."

I always thought Tricky Dick's military strategy of preserving American lives while still dealing with the NVA...



...was just a little more effective than what LBJ proposed.

Innocent bystander (as is Dora) are obviously Wiki-warriors that don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I'm not going to waste a couple hours resolving their naivety, but let me state the obvious so as even a brain dead imbecile can comprehend it:

Saudi Arabia has a very vocal and very restless Shiite minority population (10-15% of Saudi population) that is mostly centered in the Eastern oil producing region of Saudi Arabia and they are highly sensitive to how cozy the Saudis are with the United States. If the US attacks Iran DIRECTLY then that will inflame the Saudi Shiites into voilence against the Saudi government. The same Saudi Arabia that is the largest oil producing state in the world.

Have any idea what that would do to oil prices you idiots? Not even to mention what would happen to oil prices if the Saudi government were toppled (as it already walks a precarious tight-rope) by an already distrustful and restless Saudi population?

No, I didn't think you did.

Anyway, my central point stands. Iran's Shiite dominated influence in the region has been greatly increased by the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not diminished. Saudi Arabia's Sunni dominated country is directly threatened by this development. This is Middle East 101 and if you can't comprehend that then STFU.

Stormaktstiden, what did I say that you disagree with?

Wiki-warrior, I like that. Nice little rhetorical flourish.

Stormaktstiden wrote:Innocent bystander (as is Dora) are obviously Wiki-warriors that don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I'm not going to waste a couple hours resolving their naivety, but let me state the obvious so as even a brain dead imbecile can comprehend it:

Saudi Arabia has a very vocal and very restless Shiite minority population (10-15% of Saudi population) that is mostly centered in the Eastern oil producing region of Saudi Arabia and they are highly sensitive to how cozy the Saudis are with the United States. If the US attacks Iran DIRECTLY then that will inflame the Saudi Shiites into violence against the Saudi government. The same Saudi Arabia that is the largest oil producing state in the world.

Storm,

That's all well and good. However....

....the United States does not alter it's national security policy because a bunch of 3rd world savages might become "violent" at the Great Satan if we do something they don't like. We don't allow Islamic extremists to dictate the terms and boundaries of our national security, because if we do, we only further encourage savage behavior of the lowest common denominator of the world.

We have Shiites in the United States. I seriously doubt that any of them would be "inflamed" if we attacked Iran DIRECTLY. Somehow, holding Shiites in the Middle East to a lower standard is an excuse for us to do nothing as Iran develops nukes. Please don't use the antics of savages as an excuse for us NOT to do something in the Middle East. I do not recognize their right to be "angered" at our behavior towards Iran, nor should you.

...the United States does not alter it's national security policy because a bunch of 3rd world savages might become "violent" at the Great Satan if we do something they don't like. We don't allow Islamic extremists to dictate the terms and boundaries of our national security, because if we do, we only further encourage savage behavior of the lowest common denominator of the world.

we do it every day. Our policy toward arab states is based on oil and Israel. We'll let one burn to the ground while protecting the other based on their strategic importance to us.

Fuck em. Kill them all and steal those sand negros oil.

we do it every day. Our policy toward arab states is based on oil and Israel. We'll let one burn to the ground while protecting the other based on their strategic importance to us.

Which is which?

Dora please keep in mind that Crow uses a lot of big words and rhetorical flourishes to cover up the fact that he's a moron.

Thanks August. I'm preplexed because he is saying the same stuff I said yet he says I don't have a clue. So I think I must have said something he disagrees with???

Augie nails it