RyushiBlade on 19/4/2006 at 04:13
Quote Posted by shadows
But the US is the world's most powerful military, surely they can handle one country with no problem? :wot: (not saying the US should attack Iran, just giving an analysis ;) )
This is a common misconception. America is very rich, and so it can afford big guns. It also has a very large population. Unfortunately, we are a Democracy. According to the rules for Civilization, a democratic form of government will suffer dearly from war-weariness.
It's actually true. The majority of Americans won't want to go to war. Not so soon after Iraq. America has been spending a lot of money fighting in Iraq, and has lost more than a thousand volunteers. Noadays, not too many people volunteer to (quite possibly) get their head blown off. So while every man, woman, and child in Iran would gladly blow up any American
as well as themselves*, many Americans would be unwilling to do the same to them. Minus the suicide bit.
Plus, the biggest concern is of China or Russia allying themselves with Iran. Especially China. It's strong, it's got a billion people, and it's just small hop away from our West Coast.
*Stereotype!
Fringe on 19/4/2006 at 04:36
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
hay guys we still flogging a skeletal horse itt?
Real World Event meets Scots's Internet Attention Span itt.
itt itt itt when will "itt" ever stop being cool?
descenterace on 19/4/2006 at 06:00
Quote Posted by shadows
But the US is the world's most powerful military, surely they can handle one country with no problem? :wot: (not saying the US should attack Iran, just giving an analysis ;) )
Logistics win wars.
The logistics of fighting a war many thousands of miles away from home base are never good. You need forward basing and lots of transport capability. The US has the latter, but the former requires willing allies near the war zone.
Fortunately, the US does have many intercontinental-range conventional weapons (the heavy bomber fleet), and they can be supported by Carriers. Neither of these forces require forward bases to be effective. However, the heavy bomber fleet is being stepped down, if not phased out completely, over the next ten years or so, and a Carrier battle group makes a nice, big,
inviting target for Iran's supply of intermediate-range missiles (which Iran certainly has, although the warheads almost certainly aren't nuclear at this stage).
Carriers might be very good at stopping missile attacks, and the other ships in the fleet are very capable too, but there's always room for Murphy.
In short, the US may have the most powerful military forces in the world, but the world situation does not make for easy victories abroad. Forward basing is essential for a land war, for instance. Wars aren't won by air or Navy alone.
Rogue Keeper on 19/4/2006 at 07:19
The main currency on the world oil market is Amercan dollar. Iraq planned to open oil commodity bourse with Euro as the main operating currency. The US Government could not allow that, because it would drag dollar's value and importance down. It didn't happen, because the regime has been put down. Iran also plans to open an oil commodity bourse with Euro as the main operating currency. Now c'mon, can the US Government possibly allow that?
It is necessary to find a cover reason for regime change through military intervention, though. Spooking people with WMDs is a very convenient reason.
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Someone's gotta step in and settle it, I think. Preferrably non-violently.
Your faith in peaceful solving of global issues is appreciated, though everything indicates that the world has decided
to solve upcoming energy crisis in an "old-fashioned" way.
D'Juhn Keep on 19/4/2006 at 16:34
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I disagree that it's a "perfectly good reason" but the USA never acts unless it's in its overwhelming self-interest
Well yes, me too. But *I'm* not running the USA. It would seem to me that they'd put the best interests of their country ahead of any other interests, including not trampling on other countries. It'd be nice if they didn't have to but in reality it's going to continue for the foreseeable future.
Wyclef on 19/4/2006 at 18:37
The recent war was, as a Freudian might say, overdetermined, but Iggles is quite right that oil played a very significant role, and it isn't conspiracy theorizing to say so.
Quote:
And when I say "self-interest", I really mean the interests of those few individuals who run the oligarchy.
Yes. An aside: I'm not an IR theorist, but I think the major problem with neo-realism is that it neglects the role of conflict of classes and individuals within states and that common interest between classes and individuals might cut across national borders. This is the problem with the much discussed Mearsheimer/Walt piece in the LRB on the Israel lobby: the Israel lobby is purported to distort American foreign policy -- that I do not deny -- but also like no other lobby, because it's exogenuous/not rooted in the United States. What's good for General Motors isn't necessarily good for America, even if GM lobbies successfully for favorable foreign policy.
ANYWAY
hahah, good luck with the Chavistas in the barrios
Quote:
Plus Iran is just begging to fall apart, even more than Iraq, and my hopes for independent Kurdistan dovetail nicely with said break up.
The notion that Iran is more fissiparous than Iraq is certainly curious, and I wonder whether you realize that the Iraqi Kurd region isn't exactly a model democracy. Criticize Barzani and you GO TO JALE
SubJeff on 19/4/2006 at 19:30
What I want to know is how the US keeps managing to pull off this "That country shouldn't have nukes because we say so. Oooh look at our massive nuke stash mmmm lovely." crap without anyone questioning it. It's as if it's somehow a given that certain countries should or shouldn't own nukes and that other countries have the right to dictate that.
What would happen if China and Europe (sans UK natch since Blair has lost it) said "HAY America get rid of your nukes you warmongers or we invade"? Uproar, that's what. It's pathetic. The US has caused so much crap worldwide - this is common knowledge and documented history - yet somehow Americans and US allies just seem to just brush it all under the carpet.
Does someone have the stats on how many civilians Saddam killed vs how many have died due US and allied action in the 2 gulf wars?
SD on 19/4/2006 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Does someone have the stats on how many civilians Saddam killed vs how many have died due US and allied action in the 2 gulf wars?
Well, it's a bit complicated, and nobody knows for sure.
Saddam is considered to have been directly responsible for the deaths of around 200,000 of his own citizens.
Around 500,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, instigated by Saddam and supported by the USA.
Probably more than 100,000 died across the two Gulf Wars.
All those figures are dwarfed by the 1.2m who died as a result of American-imposed sanctions on Iraq.
Whichever way you cut it, there are millions of people dead as a direct result of our meddling in the affairs of Iraq over the past quarter of a century. And that total is only heading in one direction.
TBE on 19/4/2006 at 22:16
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Taffer-boy, you might want to be sketpical of what people say to you when you're holding a gun and they know you're likely to use it at a moment's notice. I'm sure there are some people there with that opinion, but a grain of salt should still be taken.
I didn't have a gun. I am in the Air Force Reserve, and I work on F-16 planes. We generally aren't given a gun, because we're at "secure" locations. So much for secure. We got mortar and rocket attacked like every other day. I had long conversations with Iraqi nationals over there. They want us out of there as bad as we want to leave, but they understand these infidels will probably take over if we just up and leave. Until they all agree to live in the same country without blowing each other up, then we're going to need to help them. This whole thing is about religion, so I'm going to blame Allah.
