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.

Empty threats from the warmongers. The truth about military force against Iran is according to the Unite State Army/Marine Corps counter insurgency manual it would take at least 1.5 million boots on the ground to occupy Iran after an invasion, and western nations don't have the national will to kill 75 million Iranians in a nuclear holocaust.

They also have oil in Canada. And Texas.

And apparently a big find in North Dakota

wow...here I'm thinking we're going to be Brazil NUMBA ONE customer for their oil export

Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.

Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?

Man, whitey hates brown dude.

Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.

Haven't you seen Generation Kill?
"It's destiny dog, white mans gotta rule the world"

warspawned wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.

Is that the Iranian perspective or America's?

America's, we burn our problems most of the time.

Jihadin wrote:

Man, whitey hates brown dude.

Light tan.....course they're not hygenic so they are a bit...dirty...smelly..Iran is a bit more modern in frastructure so they're clean light tan.....I see a lot of tomahawks and airstrikes.

Hey I would say that they're a bit more hygienic than you give them credit for because all of those sandstorms have to be excellent exfoliates.

Frazzled wrote:Here's an awesome concept. Leave us the feth alone or we'll nuke you. Once the oil runs out you're irrelevant.

Kind of like the mentality the Brotherhood of Steel has in all the Fallout games. I could get on board with that thinking

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ha ha success, I have defeated you evil failed YouTube link!

LordofHats wrote:
It depends. Say you're going to intercede in Rwanda to stop genocide, yes, I think people will generally say "Go get um!" Humanitarian intervention though carries a very different meaning for a lot of people than invading a relatively stable nation like Iran, where there isn't even mass killing. People start crying about starting unnecessary wars. A lot of people I don't think even consider humanitarian missions 'war' as we commonly think of it. Sure they call it a war, but they approach it very differently than a more conventional country A attacks country B conflict.

Statistically, there tends to be greater support for humanitarian interventions (about 60% of the electorate) than for wars fought over US security (about 40% of the electorate), except when those wars are fought due to an attack on the US (about 70% of the electorate).

Interestingly, when more specific qualifiers were used, the numbers for support tended to increase, with about 80% of the electorate supporting war in response to terrorism or against Saddam Hussein. There's also significantly more support for aerial campaigns than for the deployment of ground troops, though I don't recall how much more.

This is all paraphrased, of course, but its from a paper written between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

biccat wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Man, whitey hates brown dude.

Not necessarily that but China is a huge stabilizing factor in the Asian area.

To a certain worldview - which I can only assume Shuma is parodying because it's completely absurd - the United States and Western powers only attack people based on the color of their skin, not such complicated issues as international politics.

Well, realistically war in a Muslim dominated country almost always polls higher then war in an Asian one. The justifications are easier made, the populace is more familiar with the 'enemy' (despite it being mostly imagined) and the stakes are more personal (despite the personal connection being most often utterly fictional). I was being flippant though, the U.S. has absolutely no interest in a war on Iran right now and we've been drawing and redrawing plans for an invasion for decades, as has likely our allies in europe. It's the militarys job to be prepared for such an event, despite how unlikely it is.

Religious, racial, and nationalist prejudice plays significantly into directing American foreign policy. Americans don't like Muslim countries. Any of them, really. They're the boogieman that has been ingrained into our consciousness as the irreversible other that is the enemy of our freedoms and apple pies. On the other hand most Americans have no fething idea where one country in Asia begins and the other ends (thats actually true of the mideast too, but the region itself is pretty disliked on the whole, so it doesn't matter). That's actually pretty racist at it's core, but it's not really intentional or malicious. It's just the result of the collapse of communism as the great enemy and the need for policy hawks to direct our out of control military industrial complex at something new every few years. A logical and color blind foreign policy would have intervened in Africa half a dozen times, and invaded almost every one of Iraqs neighbors before it did Iraq. It would also have troops in mexico, though to questionable results.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The Saudis paid for a sizeable amount of the first Gulf, we need someone to do the same again. :p

The saudis are like a cross between the man behind the curtain in Oz and Senator palpatine.

Pretty sure they are funding most of the people we have been fighting as well...

I think we are overdue a war, only real way to cut down on the 7 billion population. Over course, I'll be over here in my neutral country watching it all. GO USA!

Eh a real population reducing war would be an all out fight to the death between China and India.

AustonT wrote:Eh a real population reducing war would be an all out fight to the death between China and India.

In which case the nuclear fallout would actually make life on earth significantly harder for the survivors then the simple issue of population growth (especially considering we aren't overpopulated by very many metrics at the moment).

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:Eh a real population reducing war would be an all out fight to the death between China and India.

In which case the nuclear fallout would actually make life on earth significantly harder for the survivors then the simple issue of population growth (especially considering we aren't overpopulated by very many metrics at the moment).

Not if they fight with clubs.

AustonT wrote:Not if they fight with clubs.

The first rule is you don't talk about fighting with clubs.

Or whiffle bats. That way we have entertainment for a really long time, as killing someone with a whiffle bat is a time consuming affair.

LordofHats wrote:

AustonT wrote:Not if they fight with clubs.

The first rule is you don't talk about fighting with clubs.

The second rule is you don't talk about fighting with clubs?

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AustonT wrote:Not if they fight with clubs.

The first rule is you don't talk about fighting with clubs.

The second rule is you don't talk about fighting with clubs?

The third rule is that if he rolls over and screams that you just cracked his skull, he probably needs an ambulance

Or another whack

Bout time.

Damn Iranians have had it easy for a while

But really, hopefully we can avoid any unecessary conflicts.

Not if they fight with night clubs.

My kinda war
Boogie your way to victory around shoes and handbags

A war with Iran would be unfortunate. In my experience with Persian folks is that if you disregard the Shiite Muslim theocracy of their government, at their base societal level, their culture is probably the closest to ours out of pretty much all of the middle eastern states, barring Turkey.

Meanwhile we support the Saudis whose radical wahhabist ideology has killed more Americans then all of the Iraq war coalition casualties. And we all know it.

If Iran provokes the war I'd be for it, but not before all avenues have been exhausted. And we should make the Saudi's pay for it, as its mainly their beef with Iran that is fueling this.

I'm absolutely sick of this warmongering western society.

Let Iran go and feth itself. If it wants to develop Nuclear weapons we merely should just launch a large blast template at Tehran.

I think we have enough problems to deal with, what with Greece acting like arseholes. Perhaps they need blast templated to.

Nuke the world! Let them know it's Nuclear Winter Time!

If there was ever a war I supported, it would be against the morons who are blinded by Religion.

Karon wrote:If there was ever a war I supported, it would be against the morons who are blinded by Religion.

That's a war without end.

Karon wrote:If there was ever a war I supported, it would be against the morons who are blinded by Religion.

I think that anyone with blind loyalty to anything should be punished.

ShumaGorath wrote:North korea has nukes, threatens to use them constantly, and provocatively attacks its neighbors? Nothing.

Irans got some turbines spinning up fuel? Better prep those subs!

Man, whitey hates brown dude.

I think it's a different situation in Korea (bearing in mind that at one point N Korea was part of the 'Axis of Evil' and there were hawks within the Bush administration who actually wanted a military move against the North).

The cost involved? North Korea has one of the largest land armies in the world - poorly trained, poorly equipped yes, but any war there would result in the practical destruction of the Korean peninsula and I have no doubt it would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not more, even as the US would eventually be able to gain victory. The North also has the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world - again, no doubt they would eventually be destroyed, but I wonder if the 10 million or so people in Seoul (and on whom those guns are trained) would be comfortable with that?

Living in South Korea at the moment (and in the Industrial heartland no less, which would be the first place the Northern bombs would land) I hope to God that no Western diplomat would be so stupid as to escalate matters, no matter what direction the North takes with WMD building. Even during the height of the crisis last year, after the sinking of the Cheonan (S. Korean warship, allegedly sunk by the North with 51 S. Korean sailors killed), and all the outrage and anger that followed, there was never the serious contention that war might begin. Both sides, and even the North despite its delusions, know that a war with the military components currently in place would send both sides spiralling back to the 3rd world. Considering what the South has achieved in terms of growth, the spirit of the country even after 40 years of Japanese occupation, and then their nation being split in half by belligerent super-powers for whom it wasn't enough just to hand the country back to its rightful owners - that would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

The cracks are starting to appear in the North. Teddy Bear is widely reported to be on his last legs, and there are wide reports of a younger generation, using the internet and cell phones brought in from China, gradually becoming aware of a world outside the propaganda posters and the government-run education systems. Let some ambitious general make a play for power to take it from Kim Jong Il's son, or someone else, let there be the inevitable squabble and 'night of the long knives', which in the end results in the door being open a crack and then perhaps finally the long and painful crawl to a semblance of democracy and perhaps even reunification. But for God's sake, let them do it on their own terms - without the persistent Western meddling and desire to propagate our own military industry.

One of the few encouraging aspects of this topic came from the leaked Chinese-Western memos from Wikileaks last year. China has assured Washington that, should some kind of coup or uprising occur in the North, they will not intervene. If they are telling the truth (and in all honest, they must realise that the North's political system cannot possibly endure) then at least their presence makes any Western military intervention unlikely. It is on their doorstep, hopefully the stand-off in terms of the current world super-power, and the new power in that region of the world, will allow the North Koreans to make their own destiny and perhaps less bloodshed as a result.

NSFW, but totally applicable. George cut right to the core of the matter 20 years ago. I elect him for sainthood.