Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By bigchris1313 on 10/02/2007 12:02 PM

Do you know what a war with Iran would entail?  It would be a strategic nightmare.  Not only are we up to our clavicles in *gak* in Iraq, but the Iranians are well-armed, have lots of bodies, and live in mountainous territory that would be a nightmare to navigate.  Furthermore, the Iranians are messing about in Iraq because we're messing around with their internal affairs on a daily basis, albeit in a more covert fashion.  And did I mention that we just don't have the manpower?

I'm not quite sure how to get the Iranians out of Iraq, but they know we won't actually go to war (for strategic and political reasons), so they're going to keep poking us in the side.

I say we let Iran have the bomb.  Israel has one.  They have one.  No one's actually going to use them anytime soon, for obvious reasons.  That or we let Israel send a squadron on a suicide mission armed with bunker busters that we know will kill untold civillians and piss off everyone else.  I have to say, building their centrifuges in populated areas was a good move on their part. 

No it would be much easier than Iraq, Iran has only two ways to get their only commodity out, both can be closed off.  The main issue is the EU who does not have foresight like the US and build up a reserve of petroleum who will suffer because they do business with Iran in substantial.   If you have to put boots on the ground they need to lose " we don't want to destroy  X type of building because it will make them hate us"  they already hate us.  It is programmed into them through the wonderful state that Jimmy Carter helped create. 

Jfrazell: Iran is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into. It's kinda scary how anarchy spreads like wildfire. Anyway. Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry. Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying Italy would/could annex Bavaria, since it's mostly catholic.

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

Overall, BigChris, I agree with you. Your post on the interest of Iran in a stable Iraq, and on the emnity between the two populations, beat me to the punch. Well done. If they want a bomb, I would rather they not have it -- nuclear proliferation is just bad, no matter if it's Switzerland, South Africa, Iran, or anyone else -- but you're right, it is not without precedent in the region.

Bigchris: Just one bone I would like to pick:

I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik viewpoint. The raison d'etat is not preservation alone, nor self-aggrandizement alone, but also the preservation of certain moral and/or social ideals. The United States does a tremendous disservice to those ideals by giving material aid to despicable regimes. We make that offense even more rank to the international community by doing so to advance our interests -- not usually to preserve ourselves from imminent destruction or anything, but merely to gain political or economic maneuvering room.

Oh, and the Saudi's troublemakers are usually democratic activists. Those, they kill or lock up for years. Their terrorists...well, they only go after them when we REALLY put the heat on.

-Adso

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik

 

1. No actually we and the Soviets vowed not to interfere, we did not put the knife in the Iraqi's hand and send them through the door like you are trying to portrait it. 

2.  An insult, not even a good one.

 

Whoever said that war was moral?  You certainly will never win one by not being underhanded and having the will to win.  We have never been above useing our influence in one way or another since the inception of the country. McCarthisim is now a hollow term, being as the man that created the term  (Owen Lattimore) who is one of the people we can thank for Mao takeing over China, the Divided Korea, the Vietnam War and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.  How dare he call people like that out.

3. Blame the British.

4.  It has nothing to do with a pissing contest, it is the fact that we no longer use war rarely as we once did.  People fail to realize that if you are going to bare you fangs you have to bite.  You cannot half ass fight a war because of push polls or fear of loseing infrastructure.  That is one lesson we lost from every war we have been in from 1861/1945.

 

You do realize Kissinger falls into the Wilsonian political sphere. 

Posted By BrotherAdso on 10/02/2007 12:44 PM
Jfrazell: Iran is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into. It's kinda scary how anarchy spreads like wildfire. Anyway. Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry. Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying Italy would/could annex Bavaria, since it's mostly catholic.

Dice Monkey: Sigh.
1) We began the war. We did not end it. It ended through mutual exhaustion, bankruptcy, and popular unrest. All we got out of it was our enemy (Iran) distracted for 15 years, our strongman (Hussein) in a thoroughly militarized society for 15 years, and a hell of a lot of money in our arms company accounts.

2) I could write you a half dozen cited pages on the Monroe Doctrine. No, I do not agree with Soviet arms sales. Nor with European Union arms sales to repressive regimes, nor Chinese arms sales to african genocidal warlord and South Asian juntas. They are all morally and legally impermissible. I was only pointing out we are quite guilty of similar crimes. Nor am I a communist, as you seemed to imply. Hie thee back to thy dark hole, McCarthy.

3) I don't have the heart to derail this thread into a discussion of the tragedy of post-WWII middle eastern politics -- blood, misery, hypocrisy, and indecency on all sides.

4) Big Chris fielded the question of not playing bigger-penis-games with Iran well. Read his response.

Overall, BigChris, I agree with you. Your post on the interest of Iran in a stable Iraq, and on the emnity between the two populations, beat me to the punch. Well done. If they want a bomb, I would rather they not have it -- nuclear proliferation is just bad, no matter if it's Switzerland, South Africa, Iran, or anyone else -- but you're right, it is not without precedent in the region.

Bigchris: Just one bone I would like to pick:

The raison d'etat is not preservation alone, nor self-aggrandizement alone, but also the preservation of certain moral and/or social ideals. The United States does a tremendous disservice to those ideals by giving material aid to despicable regimes. We make that offense even more rank to the international community by doing so to advance our interests -- not usually to preserve ourselves from imminent destruction or anything, but merely to gain political or economic maneuvering room.

Oh, and the Saudi's troublemakers are usually democratic activists. Those, they kill or lock up for years. Their terrorists...well, they only go after them when we REALLY put the heat on.

-Adso

Lets discuss these points:

 

“<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region></st1:place> is not actively fueling this carnage -- it is doing its part in a regional conflict, which they had little choice but to be drawn into.”

-Explain how they were drawn in again? <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> fell. Instead of being afraid, they were emboldened – which I fault Bush/Cheney for.  They begun sending weaponry, terrorists and their own soldiers into <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> to destabilize the region and kill Americans.

 

“Crossborder annexation simply isn't allowable in the modern world -- you've been playing too much Risk, sorry.”

I’ll ignore the slam.

Tell that to the Bosnians (some of whom in gratitude for us saving their butts were just foiled in attempting to kill Americans).  And when exactly does it not work? Take the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> out of the picture and it would have worked many times. Here’s some that immediately come to mind.

-<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bosnia</st1:place></st1:country-region>

-Kosovo

-<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">South Korea</st1:place></st1:country-region>

-<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kuwait</st1:place></st1:country-region>

-<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Taiwan</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

 

“Besides which, the ethnic and social differences between those populations far exceed any shiite religious bonds. This argument is like saying <st1:country-region w:st="on">Italy</st1:country-region> would/could annex <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bavaria</st1:place></st1:state>, since it's mostly catholic.”

No its like saying the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> would annex <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Texas</st1:state></st1:place>, because they have a similar religion and culture.

 

“I look at foreign policy from a Wilsonian rather than a Kissinger/Realpolitik viewpoint.” <st1:city w:st="on">Wilson</st1:city> was a do-gooder who helped  create the fraud that was the <st1:place w:st="on">League of Nations</st1:place>, instead of dealing with the real post WWI situation.

I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

We could drag it back down for you.

 

That  A Men Gin A Jar done cussed us in that Spanish language he done spoke.  We should done shoot him and string him up  like Pat Robertson sais.  That'll show them Frenchies!

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

Posted By jfrazell on 10/03/2007 4:14 AM

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

And send him back to Mexico with all them other Chinese people!

Posted By Dice Monkey on 10/03/2007 11:13 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 10/03/2007 4:14 AM

Posted By Triggerbaby on 10/02/2007 3:32 PM
I love this. We started with "hurr durr shoot the bad man" and evolved towards intelligent analysis of the situation. It's a complete reversal of the Dakka paradigm.

This is a wonderful thread.

Don't worry. This is self correcting as I'm back online...

Hurr Durr Shoot the bad man!

And send him back to Mexico with all them other Chinese people!

Somebody car me?

Only if you know where some good restaurants are in Matamoros baby.

I like this direction.

We should justify any and all invasions and occupations based on the culinary contributions of the nation in question.

England will be carpetbombed for gastronomical crimes against humanity.
I suggest forming a strategic falafel-pita alliance to neutralize Iranian flatbread influence immediately.

Perhaps a National Deliciousness Alert Level?

-Adso

English food is good, now Iceland should be sunk into the North Atlantic for such culinary contributions as jellied rams testicles and rotted shark.

Clearly Latin America would be a world power, a colossus striding the known world (to borrow the phrase from Spartacus).

But that speaks to my theory as to why the British were such empire building mo-fo's. They REALLY needed to get out and get some decent food. Baked beans on bread? Barf!

Hey Dice Monkey you still 40King Houston way?

Well, that was interesting. Certainly not points of veiw I see expressed regularly where I live.
I disagree with a fair bit of what ye are saying, but ye can argue a point fairly well.
*Goes off to think and read up a bit*

As for yer man, well he's a loon but shooting him is hardly the answer and hardly the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged.

Why? The thorough application of said shooting are what stopped the Germans and Japanese from taking over the world? It reads to the classic ethics test. If you could go back in time and stop Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot before the heavy killing began, would you?

Da Boss, feel free to expound your point of view!  It's always good to get a different opinion, and aside from Dice Monkey, we won't come down hard on you.

Dice Monkey is VERY opinionated. 

Posted By Iorek on 10/11/2007 5:53 AM
Da Boss, feel free to expound your point of view!  It's always good to get a different opinion, and aside from Dice Monkey, we won't come down hard on you.

Dice Monkey is VERY opinionated. 

Yes thats what the forum is about (I think)

Dice Monkey isn't opinionated. He's a Texan.

Well, he's a foreign leader on your soil who entered on the assumption ye wouldn't shoot him. Shooting him would be incredibly hostile and show utter contempt for the sensibilities of the rest of the world. it would piss off a lot of people. That's why it would be stupid. If some random nutter did it, it'd still be bad because he wasn't protected properly.
As for the travel back in time argument, well, yeah sure, because I know exactly what they've done. when you start trying to use that to justify killing people because of what they might do, you're on shaky ground.
If war is eventually declared (and I hope not, I'd prefer peaceful resolution where possible) then by all means attack.
But attacking him when he's on a visit to a university to give a speech, and was invited by said uni? Bad form altogether.

But i do understand the anger about Iranian weapons finding their way into Iraq. I haven't seen concrete proof, but I'm willing to bet it's happening. I just think diplomacy is a better route than violence in most situations.

(But hey I would I live in a "neutral" (yeah *fudge*ing right, we'll be neutral when we stop letting american planes refuel here. Not that we should stop them mind you- it'd be economic suicide! But we should stop claiming to be neutral. Whole other debate, sorry) country which limits it's military involvement to UN peacekeeping. Certainly no "World Police" attitudes floating around here.)

Oh and don't worry I'm not afraid of debate. I just don't currently know as much as I'd like about Iran and don't want to shoot my mouth off prematurely. It is interesting to read your points of view though. And I can see where you're coming from (especially wanting to protect your soldiers. My brother is in the British military and I want him to be safe.)

Posted By jfrazell on 10/05/2007 4:13 AM

Hey Dice Monkey you still 40King Houston way?

No, I have been exiled to the gameing waste of Mobile Alabama.  No decent gameing stores for 70 miles in any direction one comic store serviceing half a million trailer park residents here.  I plan to make it back in the spring for BB, keep in touch if you feel you can break free from "she who must be obeyed" I have an extra army you would be welcome to play.

Oh 40K armies I have...

Be cool Mobile boy (is that where the battleship is?)

I dropped 40K like a bad habit, this is Fantasy were talking about. And yes they have the battleship and last week Joan Jett and Blue Oyster Cult played. After that it is almost al old people and Holy Rollers.

or Old People using holy Rollers...