NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been watching the news lately, and I'm seeing that people are talking about how the has all these "bunker busters" armed with nukes that should be used on Iran. In my opinion, us going to war with Iran would be devastating, not least at all to our armed forces. If we used Nukes, then every U.S. Embassy in the world will be attacked, and we'll have thousands of deaths just from those. Therefore, if our President orders that WMD's be used on Iran, I have a simple solution:

Military coup.

If Bush gets us into a war with Iran, the last 40 years of military reform will go to waste. Our army will go from highly-trained and disciplined professional force to a massive conscript-army. The Army can barely handle the War on Terrorism as it is; invading Iran will take at least 500,000 soldiers. Therefore, if Bush orders that we bomb Iran, the Military should remove him from office. It would be easy; station some tanks outside the White House and apprehend the President. Then the Joint Chiefs can head a temporary Military Junta in charge of the executive and legislative branches while elections are planned for the following November. The Supreme Court can be replaced by a Military Tribunal. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld can be tried for crimes against the state, so they can pay for ruining our economic growth and trying to get our county into 2 wars that weren't legally justified.

Of course, this plan runs the risk of the Military Junta staying in power longer than it takes to hold the next elections. But, when you think about it, most countries under a Military Dictatorship show rapid economic growth (Nazi Germany, Persia under the Shah in the '30s, Fascist Italy), so that may not be a bad thing.

You don't need a coup d'état, you need a coup of the people. Show the world that you all care, not just the army.

And the use of nuclear armaments will thoroughly fuck the world over at this time. Any Persian sympathisers (and there will be a fair few) will probably counter-attack with theirs and then we get incredibly lethal ping-pong being played. Which is bad.

And the world will be over. So don't let him use nukes!

The peoples revolution marches onwards. It will be the people fighting to preserve their lives and their loved ones from a power hungry, oil driven madman.

don't be alarmed by nasty words odds are no attacks on Iran will take place but if they do it will be special forces neutralising nuclear sites I think that will be it because Iran will turn into a quagmire should any large military action take place also with patriots in place and no way for Iran to have nuclear delivery anyway not a single N, B or C weapon will be fired

You don't need a coup d'état, you need a coup of the people. Show the world that you all care, not just the army.

And the use of nuclear armaments will thoroughly fuck the world over at this time. Any Persian sympathisers (and there will be a fair few) will probably counter-attack with theirs and then we get incredibly lethal ping-pong being played. Which is bad.

And the world will be over. So don't let him use nukes!

What we should do is arm dissidents in Iran, promote the Heir to the throne of Shah as the legal ruler of Iran and support a Constitutional Monarchy, and support them in a Civil War against the Islamofascist rulers of the country. That's what we usually do. We shouldn't send troops, though. That would defeat the purpose of having the Iranians fight for their own freedom.

If Bush does anything that stupid, I'm loading my shotgun and taking it to the streets.

bad idea.

First off, it is highly unlikely that the Joint Cheifs would "rebel" against the President, most of them tend to side with him, plus, Bush likes the military, he likes to give them things to do and lots of money to spend. That, and the military wouldn't fuck with where their funding comes from.

Another problem is that is there was an attempted coup, the military would mostly likely split into the pro and con factions and startt fighting against each other, civil war style. The problem here is that the people that overall support Bush within the military outnumber those that don't like him.

The biggest problem lies here: instead of a massive conscript army, you would instead get veitnam-era protests, people burning draft cards, running from the country, etc. . . . Plus, a draft is political suicide for anyone thta votes for it.


Lets follow your plan in another hypothetical and say it all goes as planned. History shows that military Juantas rarely give up power unless forced out, this would probably be the case in the states as well. You're presenting a case where it is almost guarenteed that civil and political rights will go down the drain in the name of "Security" and "stability". Yes, Nazi Germany showed good economic growth, but look at the society. Would you want that?

don't be alarmed by nasty words odds are no attacks on Iran will take place but if they do it will be special forces neutralising nuclear sites I think that will be it because Iran will turn into a quagmire should any large military action take place also with patriots in place and no way for Iran to have nuclear delivery anyway not a single N, B or C weapon will be fired
Periods are our friend.

don't be alarmed by nasty words odds are no attacks on Iran will take place but if they do it will be special forces neutralising nuclear sites I think that will be it because Iran will turn into a quagmire should any large military action take place also with patriots in place and no way for Iran to have nuclear delivery anyway not a single N, B or C weapon will be fired

You would hope so, but you would also hope that the same had been done in Iraq, really. Your Special Ops chaps should have found and ruined the WMDs (if there were any) and then you wouldn't be involved any more.

It'll be an invasion, I reckon, which would be sad.

The duty of the Army is to protect the Constitution, not overthow it.

The duty of the Army is to protect the Constitution, not overthow it.
We still have that piece of paper?

The duty of the Army is to protect the Constitution, not overthow it.

It would be entirely deserved, though.

The duty of the Army is to protect the Constitution, not overthow it.
Which is what a coup would be.

bad idea.

First off, it is highly unlikely that the Joint Cheifs would "rebel" against the President, most of them tend to side with him, plus, Bush likes the military, he likes to give them things to do and lots of money to spend. That, and the military wouldn't fuck with where their funding comes from.

Another problem is that is there was an attempted coup, the military would mostly likely split into the pro and con factions and startt fighting against each other, civil war style. The problem here is that the people that overall support Bush within the military outnumber those that don't like him.

The biggest problem lies here: instead of a massive conscript army, you would instead get veitnam-era protests, people burning draft cards, running from the country, etc. . . . Plus, a draft is political suicide for anyone thta votes for it.



The Joint Chiefs may be Bush's friends, but even they don't want to try and re-instate the draft. If we go to war with Iran, then our current army can't support it. A draft will have to be instated. Our military is already spread way too thin. Even Bush's supporters will realize that he's going to get us into something 10x worse than Vietnam. America may not survive a war with Iran; we may win the battles, but the insurgency will be 100x more brutal than the one in Iraq, all of our allies will desert us, and America will tear itself apart. It's either the Military throws Bush out, or America descends into chaos.

Also, not only Generals lead military dictatorships. Hell, Qadafi was (and still is) a colonel.


Lets follow your plan in another hypothetical and say it all goes as planned. History shows that military Juantas rarely give up power unless forced out, this would probably be the case in the states as well. You're presenting a case where it is almost guarenteed that civil and political rights will go down the drain in the name of "Security" and "stability". Yes, Nazi Germany showed good economic growth, but look at the society. Would you want that?

At least in Nazi Germany I was assured a job, stability, security, and a life. In this Military Junta-run U.S., it would be more similar to Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain than Nazi Germany (as in race plays no important part).

Would you like to bomb Iran? (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bomb_iran)
Dated but still funny.

Would you like to bomb Iran? (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bomb_iran)
Dated but still funny.Yes, I would, Sam I Am.

Anyone here played the PC game Shattered Union?

I imagine that attacking Iran would lead to similar results.

Anyone here played the PC game Shattered Union?

I imagine that attacking Iran would lead to similar results.

That's what I envision if the Army doesn't step in and overthrow Bush.

We still have that piece of paper?

Yep. Someone's just put red lines through most of the bill of rights.

The chances of Nuclear warfare happening between any two or more countries is highly unlikely due to mutual deterrence.

Yep. Someone's just put red lines through most of the bill of rights.

I thought that it fell apart, after getting soggy from being spat on.

Well I know if Bush does anything like that I will personally lead a coup myself. But its highly unlikely that he would do that. He knows if he does he will have everyone so far up his ass, he won't be able to sit for a week.

I thought that it fell apart, after getting soggy from being spat on.
I thought Bush was using it in the presidential bathroom.

don't be alarmed by nasty words odds are no attacks on Iran will take place but if they do it will be special forces neutralising nuclear sites I think that will be it because Iran will turn into a quagmire should any large military action take place also with patriots in place and no way for Iran to have nuclear delivery anyway not a single N, B or C weapon will be fired
...
The Grammar Police would like to inform you that we are considering suicide at this very moment, thanks to your travesty of a post.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/6346/grammerpolice4pt.png

So would any of you support a non-nuclear attack on Iran?

I am against such a thing, but then I'm a bit of a pacifist when it comes to fighting in other countries.

So would any of you support a non-nuclear attack on Iran?

I am against such a thing, but then I'm a bit of a pacifist when it comes to fighting in other countries.

Any attack on Iran will go badly for us. Have the Israeli's do it; it's what they're good at, after all.

Who said we are going to enter conventional war with Iran? The overall population of the United States is for tactical bombings of nuclear refineries and plants. We don't plan to invade; we plan to bomb their nuclear sites, like we did to Iraq in the 80s.

Once their people see their government isnt gifted by the grace of Allah, they will likely rise up and eliminate this theocracy. Iran's president claims that it is his job to bring the Islamic armageddon, and giving him nuclear weapons is allowing him to do that.

Any attack on Iran will go badly for us. Have the Israeli's do it; it's what they're good at, after all.

Why not have a two-pronged attack by the Iraqi and Isreali army?

Although it would go horribly badly, thinking about it, and would damage US-Middle East relations even more.

Any attack on Iran will go badly for us. Have the Israeli's do it; it's what they're good at, after all.
Always let the Jews take the fall, eh? :rolleyes:

Any attack on Iran will go badly for us. Have the Israeli's do it; it's what they're good at, after all.


No no no no...if israel does it, we will still get dragged in. You forget the religious right control this country and want to bring the apocalypse... we use NATO And get the approval of the EU.. Use a multitude of nations..not just the US and Israel

Who said we are going to enter conventional war with Iran? The overall population of the United States is for tactical bombings of nuclear refineries and plants. We don't plan to invade; we plan to bomb their nuclear sites, like we did to Iraq in the 80s.

Once their people see their government isnt gifted by the grace of Allah, they will likely rise up and eliminate this theocracy. Iran's president claims that it is his job to bring the Islamic armageddon, and giving him nuclear weapons is allowing him to do that.

1. Israel bombed Iraq, not us.

2. If we bomb them, Ahmedinijad will get even MORE support. It will prove the reformers wrong; they claim that we aren't bad people. If we bomb them, it will backfire, especially since alot of the nuclear facilities are near populated areas. This isn't Osirak, with the nuclear facility in the middle of nowhere.

Who said we are going to enter conventional war with Iran? The overall population of the United States is for tactical bombings of nuclear refineries and plants.


Really? Got a link for that?


Once their people see their government isnt gifted by the grace of Allah, they will likely rise up and eliminate this theocracy. Iran's president claims that it is his job to bring the Islamic armageddon, and giving him nuclear weapons is allowing him to do that.

I wasn't aware of any faction advocating revolution in Iran. Remember, the general population voted for this president.

Also, bombing nuclear ANYTHING in a populated area is bad news. For everyone. I wouldn't be pissing them off myself.

1. Israel bombed Iraq, not us.

2. If we bomb them, Ahmedinijad will get even MORE support. It will prove the reformers wrong; they claim that we aren't bad people. If we bomb them, it will backfire, especially since alot of the nuclear facilities are near populated areas. This isn't Osirak, with the nuclear facility in the middle of nowhere.


Thats why we need to spark the seeds of revolution. Send in the special ops to help train resistance groups and give them air support if needed..arrest Ahmedinijad and then let them deal with the rest.

I've been watching the news lately, and I'm seeing that people are talking about how the has all these "bunker busters" armed with nukes that should be used on Iran. In my opinion, us going to war with Iran would be devastating, not least at all to our armed forces. If we used Nukes, then every U.S. Embassy in the world will be attacked, and we'll have thousands of deaths just from those. Therefore, if our President orders that WMD's be used on Iran, I have a simple solution:
Military coup.
If Bush gets us into a war with Iran, the last 40 years of military reform will go to waste. Our army will go from highly-trained and disciplined professional force to a massive conscript-army. The Army can barely handle the War on Terrorism as it is; invading Iran will take at least 500,000 soldiers. Therefore, if Bush orders that we bomb Iran, the Military should remove him from office. It would be easy; station some tanks outside the White House and apprehend the President. Then the Joint Chiefs can head a temporary Military Junta in charge of the executive and legislative branches while elections are planned for the following November. The Supreme Court can be replaced by a Military Tribunal. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld can be tried for crimes against the state, so they can pay for ruining our economic growth and trying to get our county into 2 wars that weren't legally justified. Of course, this plan runs the risk of the Military Junta staying in power longer than it takes to hold the next elections. But, when you think about it, most countries under a Military Dictatorship show rapid economic growth (Nazi Germany, Persia under the Shah in the '30s, Fascist Italy), so that may not be a bad thing.
A people's revolution would be a good thing, but after we got Bush out of office, we'd have to reinstate democratic government immediately (that way, we wouldn't run the risk of having a "Deutschland" style government). Everyone should rebel against this insane president of ours! I don't want nuclear war!

Thats why we need to spark the seeds of revolution. Send in the special ops to help train resistance groups and give them air support if needed..arrest Ahmedinijad and then let them deal with the rest.

What resistance groups? Also, overthrowing goverments in Iran has worked to the disadvantage of the US in the past.

What about a containment policy? Rather than trying to go to war, we gain energy independance, arm Iran's neighbors, put economic pressure on Iran, help the economic status of other middle eastern neighbors, and let pressure in Iran tear away the government.

Sure, it takes longer, but it doesn't require a military draft, it bolsters world economy, it removes terrorists from the rest of the middle east, and it hurts the Chinese government which is already starting to totter.

2 birds with one stone.

Thats why we need to spark the seeds of revolution. Send in the special ops to help train resistance groups and give them air support if needed..arrest Ahmedinijad and then let them deal with the rest.

Ah yes, like with the Muhaj'adeen. I can see that going well for you when you re-invade 10-20 years later.

What resistance groups?

I don't know..it just sounded good...geesh.. um the groups in Iran that want a true democracy...so um...the democracy groups!

Frankly, a military coup would never get off the ground in the U.S. Too many people would have to be willing to 1) disobey the President and 2) follow each other's orders to create such a situation. Then the media or the American people would never accept the legitimacy of such a coup.

Thats why we need to spark the seeds of revolution. Send in the special ops to help train resistance groups and give them air support if needed..arrest Ahmedinijad and then let them deal with the rest.

What spark of revolution? Iran is only going to change in one of two ways:

-Foreign invader
-Peaceable internal change (such as a Constitutional Ayatollah-ship (or something), elections putting more left-wingers into power, who then are able to work with Fearless Leader into creating a more moderate, secular form of government)

The Iranians are too happy with the status quo to go running down the streets with assault rifles demanding a new government. Like liberals in the US.

A people's revolution would be a good thing, but after we got Bush out of office, we'd have to reinstate democratic government immediately (that way, we wouldn't run the risk of having a "Deutschland" style government). Everyone should rebel against this insane president of ours! I don't want nuclear war!

If we re-instate democratic government immediately, it will be too chaotic. What we do is the military takes control for a few months, so that we can have elections in a stable environment. If the military decides to not have the elections, the people will rise up and have them anyway, so the military isn't stupid.

Ah yes, like with the Muhaj'adeen. I can see that going well for you when you re-invade 10-20 years later.


and you propose what? turn the place into a parking lot?

Frankly, a military coup would never get off the ground in the U.S. Too many people would have to be willing to 1) disobey the President and 2) follow each other's orders to create such a situation. Then the media or the American people would never accept the legitimacy of such a coup.

And that's why you need a coup of the people rather than the army.

*edits to add a response to the post above*

No, mate, what I'd do is leave them alone. If the USA can have nukes then anyone can.

I don't know..it just sounded good...geesh.. um the groups in Iran that want a true democracy...so um...the democracy groups!

Wouldn't those types of people be more inclined to use non-violent measures to achieve a Democracy? It's been working well for them to date.

Frankly, a military coup would never get off the ground in the U.S. Too many people would have to be willing to 1) disobey the President and 2) follow each other's orders to create such a situation. Then the media or the American people would never accept the legitimacy of such a coup.

It might be different when we have 150,000 dead in a war 10x more vicious than Vietnam. Against people with WMD's.

Wouldn't those types of people be more inclined to use non-violent measures to achieve a Democracy? It's been working well for them to date.


Not necessarily. I mean they have been nonviolent thus far, and look where they are.

Bush may be a lot of things but he isn't going to use nuclear weapons against Iranian sites. That would never be allowed by our own Joint Chiefs and the Cabinet. It's a ridiculous idea and I don't doubt that the story is 95% BS and 5% true, that 5% being retalitation if Iran launches one.

It might be different when we have 150,000 dead in a war 10x more vicious than Vietnam. Against people with WMD's.

I love your optimism.

I love your optimism.

Uhh....me to x-x

I love your optimism.

It's called realism :)

Not necessarily. I mean they have been nonviolent thus far, and look where they are.

Well, before this nuclear squabble got Iranian into a rally round the flag mood the Reform movement was quiet strong.

The Army can barely handle the War on Terrorism as it is; invading Iran will take at least 500,000 soldiers. .

I think America would be needing far more troops than that. I truly believe a force of 500,000 soldiers can't defeat Iran's vast and secretive army let alone containing its vast population. For example, Iraq's population is 26,783,383 (July 2006 est. at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html) and Iran's population is 68,688,433 (July 2006 est. at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html. One more thing, there's more evil hiding in Iran than Iraq and Americans (government, troops) should approach this isue with more caution (quick sand situation:p) .

Bush may be a lot of things but he isn't going to use nuclear weapons against Iranian sites. That would never be allowed by our own Joint Chiefs and the Cabinet. It's a ridiculous idea and I don't doubt that the story is 95% BS and 5% true, that 5% being retalitation if Iran launches one.

Even using regular weapons will get us screwed over. Iran isn't Iraq; it's military is strong and well armed. Not as good as ours, of course, but they have the home-field advantage, and the advantage that their military isn't strung out. If we attack, they will retaliate, even with conventional weapons. They can make the Shi'ites in Iraq become a HUGE problem. Remember the human-wave attacks of the Iran-Iraq War?

Well, before this nuclear squabble got Iranian into a rally round the flag mood the Reform movement was quiet strong.

Except for that whole, "Let's protest the elections by not voting" thing. I wonder where their collective brain was then....

Except for that whole, "Let's protest the elections by not voting" thing. I wonder where their collective brain was then....

Everyone makes mistakes.

Except for that whole, "Let's protest the elections by not voting" thing. I wonder where their collective brain was then....

LOL! That makes alot of sense.

Even using regular weapons will get us screwed over. Iran isn't Iraq; it's military is strong and well armed. Not as good as ours, of course, but they have the home-field advantage, and the advantage that their military isn't strung out. If we attack, they will retaliate, even with conventional weapons. They can make the Shi'ites in Iraq become a HUGE problem. Remember the human-wave attacks of the Iran-Iraq War?

As I said, why not just leave them to their devices?

As I said, why not just leave them to their devices?

That's what I suggest, but President Shrub looks intent on doing otherwise...

That's what I suggest, but President Shrub looks intent on doing otherwise...

Bah!

I'm sure Rumsfeld'll learn his lesson when the US troops get blown apart/gassed/whatever else'd when they go into Iran.

Bah!

I'm sure Rumsfeld'll learn his lesson when the US troops get blown apart/gassed/whatever else'd when they go into Iran.

I'd rather a military coup prevents that from happening...

I'd rather a military coup prevents that from happening...

And I'd prefer a coup of the general public to both.

And I'd prefer a coup of the general public to both.

That's more of anarchism, though, and I'd rather like to prevent that.

That's more of anarchism, though, and I'd rather like to prevent that.

Not necessarily. They could just throw him off a roof or such and demand early elections.

Coups are bad things. They destabalize the government for many electoral "generations" thereafter, undermine the point of democracy, tend to establish totalitarian or dysfunctional regimes, and run contrary to the American democratic spirit.

I oppose direct war with Iran, but I oppose upsetting the government even more. Revolutions are bad for democracy and they demonstrate a childish innability to use all of the safetys on the presidential gun to our advantage.

Coups are bad things. They destabalize the government for many electoral "generations" thereafter, undermine the point of democracy, tend to establish totalitarian or dysfunctional regimes, and run contrary to the American democratic spirit.

I oppose direct war with Iran, but I oppose upsetting the government even more. Revolutions are bad for democracy and they demonstrate a childish innability to use all of the safetys on the presidential gun to our advantage.

So basically, you advise hundreds of thousands of American deaths, but at least they died with the "American Spirit"? What is the "American Spirit", really, other than an excuse to try and force our will on the world?

Coups are bad things. They destabalize the government for many electoral "generations" thereafter, undermine the point of democracy, tend to establish totalitarian or dysfunctional regimes, and run contrary to the American democratic spirit.

I oppose direct war with Iran, but I oppose upsetting the government even more. Revolutions are bad for democracy and they demonstrate a childish innability to use all of the safetys on the presidential gun to our advantage.

Bush has vetos that he'd no doubt use.

LOL! That makes alot of sense.

As much as liberals leaving the country to live in Canada. That'll really help their cause. :rolleyes:

Or they might just know that their numbers in the US are limited, so no action will really be taken, so they might as well go to Canada for a better life there...

Whelp, thankfully because of years of EU diplomacy and the widespread respect that Iran has for the authority of the UN/IAEA, no such action will become necessary.

Oh, wait... :(

I say let him go fuck himself over. Then people will finally see the light and dissolve the union, splintering North America into 51 different countries, or 52 if Quebec follows suit. Then the bible belt can rub abortion laws into the faces of as many people they like without screwing over the rest of america.

Oh yeah, and I get dibs on Puerto Rico.

I say let him go fuck himself over. Then people will finally see the light and dissolve the union, splintering North America into 51 different countries, or 52 if Quebec follows suit. Then the bible belt can rub abortion laws into the faces of as many people they like without screwing over the rest of america.

Oh yeah, and I get dibs on Puerto Rico.

You'd let thousands die for that to happen? In all honesty?

US troops were gassed in the Gulf War, and Cheney (then sec. of def.) didn't seem to have learned his lesson when they sent our troops back in (when they apparently knew Iraq still had WMD). I doubt if Rumsfeld will lose any of his rhetoric or conviction when this Iran thing blows up. He's been working in the whitehouse since the 1970s and knows that essentially you just have to support the president. After Bush, he's been the central figurehead in the War on Terror. If Iran threatens to use nuclear weapons (of which the Administration now claims could number "up to 10,") against Israel who's got 200-400 nuclear weapons (estimated, Israel probably has the most secret nuclear program out of all of us), then the fear of nuclear war will break out and certainly turn the heads at the UN towards military intervention. Could a nuclear option then be possible? It only takes two people to order a nuclear strike. If all this is true (the CIA leaks about a "contingency plan," the apparent will of Iran to make nukes, the apparent conventionally impenetrable underground bunkers, Israel's own apparent plan to intervene in Iran), then I still don't know what to think. The problems of the 20th century aren't dying down, and maybe soon more than ever we're going to be told to be scared shitless.

Take a look at the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf) (the current U.S. policy on deploying nuclear weapons.) Eight reasons for which a field commander can ask permission to use a nuclear weapon:

An enemy threating to use or using WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
To prevent an imminent biological attack.
To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.
To stop enemy potentially overwhelming conventional forces.
To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.
To make sure US and international operations are successful.
To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.
To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.

How many of those make you a little uneasy, given our current situation? This doctrine was produced in 2005.

You'd let thousands die for that to happen? In all honesty?

Take a look at US history. How many people have died on the fool's errand of some asshole? Killing indians? Killing mexicans? Spaniards? Cubans? Germans? Germans again? Russians? Arabs?

The US was founded on exactly what it stopped being after Washington died. Anti-imperialism. A few thousand dead to cripple america enough so they can no longer pull their "police the world" bullshit sounds like a fine price to me. Hell, I'd die for that.

Basically, what I'm saying is, it won't stop at iraq. Or iran, if that happens. The US is driven by war, and it will keep on fighting. If one of those fights leaves them in a condition where they won't be able to fight for a long time, if not forever, well then go right ahead america, take the leap of faith into your death. You're dumb enough for it, after all, you did vote four more years for leaf-brain.

So basically, you advise hundreds of thousands of American deaths, but at least they died with the "American Spirit"? What is the "American Spirit", really, other than an excuse to try and force our will on the world?

Someone hasn't taken enough US history to recognize the effect of democratic tradition on social mindset. Suffice to say, there is a confidence in the power of democracy to right wrongs and fix ills that is unique to the longest lived modern democracy.

I certainly wouldn't like war with Iran, but a coup of any type is unnaceptable and could lead to even more American deaths. Coups destabilize governments. Unstable governments are more likely to suffer further revolution. One need only watch the modern history of many South American and African nations to understand this. There are ways of preventing Bush from getting Iraq '06, and the first is to show that there are better strategies and that we have the power to vote Chimpy's party into oblivion if it goes too far.

1. No one is going to use nuclear weapons, at least not America.

2. No one is going to invade Iran.

3. Learn to take what you hear with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:

Someone hasn't taken enough US history to recognize the effect of democratic tradition on social mindset. Suffice to say, there is a confidence in the power of democracy to right wrongs and fix ills that is unique to the longest lived modern democracy.

I certainly wouldn't like war with Iran, but a coup of any type is unnaceptable and could lead to even more American deaths. Coups destabilize governments. Unstable governments are more likely to suffer further revolution. One need only watch the modern history of many South American and African nations to understand this. There are ways of preventing Bush from getting Iraq '06, and the first is to show that there are better strategies and that we have the power to vote Chimpy's party into oblivion if it goes too far.

The Romans were a republic for longer than we have been, and they gladly accepted a military dictatorship. Granted, the Roman Republic isn't exactly the same as the American one, but there are enough similarities (I.E. both were the most powerful nations of their day, both had long democratic traditions, both were nations born out of rebelling from colonial masters), but you can't say that just because we've been a democracy doesn't make us coup proof.

Also, a Coup in the United States wouldn't be the same a scoup in South America or Africa. It would be the same as a coup in Europe. Granted, there was some instability afterwards, but I think the most we'll see is most of Americas territories (included Puerto Rico) breaking off.

Also, if Shrub decides to go to war AFTER the mid-terms, then we can't vote his party into oblivion for another 2 years. In those 2 years he can do whatever the hell he wants.

1. No one is going to use nuclear weapons, at least not America.

2. No one is going to invade Iran.

3. Learn to take what you hear with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:

1. I know.

2. That I'm not so sure about...

3. I'm not saying I believed it, I'm just saying it got me thinking.

I think America would be needing far more troops than that. I truly believe a force of 500,000 soldiers can't defeat Iran's vast and secretive army let alone containing its vast population. For example, Iraq's population is 26,783,383 (July 2006 est. at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html) and Iran's population is 68,688,433 (July 2006 est. at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html. One more thing, there's more evil hiding in Iran than Iraq and Americans (government, troops) should approach this isue with more caution (quick sand situation:p) .

Depends on what you want that force to do. If you simply want to destroy Iran's WMD facilities, you certainly won't need that many. But to occupy and stabilise Iran, you'd need a force of over a million.

Historically, the ratio of military forces to population for successful stabilization has been 20+ security personnel per 1000 population. (See:
link 1 (http://www.fpif.org/papers/quagmire2003_body.html) and link 2 (http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html).)

No matter how insane/stupid you think President Bush is, he is quite level headed. Don't forget about our previous president either. If it weren't for Clinton, I don't think you'd be saying the military was spread out so thin. Look on the bright side too, I'd much rather have a president that I know what he stands for, than someone that I have NO CLUE what he'd do(aka John Kerry). I hope Bush ends up getting the income tax flattened, that would definately help the economy.

US troops were gassed in the Gulf War,

Whoa! Stop! Do not pass Go! No, they weren't.

U.S. bombing of nerve-agent storage facilities produced fallout that exposed over 100,000 U.S. troops and 9,000 U.K. troops. It was thought that it might be a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome.
http://www.gulfwarvetlawsuit.com/ - website associated with the subsequent lawsuit

"The exposures came from the chemical fallout, with prevailing winds, from bombing Saddam�s chemical weapons production and storage facilities during the air war, and from the explosion of hundreds of captured and uninventoried Iraqi ammunition dumps in southeast Iraq during the brief time that Coalition troops were in that area upon the liberation of Kuwait. The U.S. government has calculated that over 100,000 of our troops were exposed to sarin nerve gas fallout from the detonation of just one Iraqi ammunition dump alone, the one at Khamisiyah."

He wasn't the one to gas us... but we stopped short of an invasion in 1991, and one can assume that he would have employed gas if we hadn't.

1. No one is going to use nuclear weapons, at least not America.

I agree, at this point. But if anyone is going to use nuclear weapons, America is going to use nuclear weapons. Our whole deterrence strategy is precisely that. If anyone uses them, we'll use them. Mutually assured destruction.

The peoples revolution marches onwards. It will be the people fighting to preserve their lives and their loved ones from a power hungry, oil driven madman.

Uh? Hello?! Have you seen what he has doing to choke-up or cars? Now large SUVs are gonna have to get like 22mpg! Its just not possible! Unless they put lawnmower engines, and then they would be so slow it would essentially negate the whole point of driving: getting places faster than walking.

Sure, they could make them outta carbon-fiber to save weight and all that shit, but who's gonna want to buy a $200,000 Ford Escape?

I'm glad I only buy and drive pre-emmisions-era cars!

I've been watching the news lately, and I'm seeing that people are talking about how the has all these "bunker busters" armed with nukes that should be used on Iran. In my opinion, us going to war with Iran would be devastating, not least at all to our armed forces. If we used Nukes, then every U.S. Embassy in the world will be attacked, and we'll have thousands of deaths just from those. Therefore, if our President orders that WMD's be used on Iran, I have a simple solution:

Military coup.

If Bush gets us into a war with Iran, the last 40 years of military reform will go to waste. Our army will go from highly-trained and disciplined professional force to a massive conscript-army. The Army can barely handle the War on Terrorism as it is; invading Iran will take at least 500,000 soldiers. Therefore, if Bush orders that we bomb Iran, the Military should remove him from office. It would be easy; station some tanks outside the White House and apprehend the President. Then the Joint Chiefs can head a temporary Military Junta in charge of the executive and legislative branches while elections are planned for the following November. The Supreme Court can be replaced by a Military Tribunal. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld can be tried for crimes against the state, so they can pay for ruining our economic growth and trying to get our county into 2 wars that weren't legally justified.

Of course, this plan runs the risk of the Military Junta staying in power longer than it takes to hold the next elections. But, when you think about it, most countries under a Military Dictatorship show rapid economic growth (Nazi Germany, Persia under the Shah in the '30s, Fascist Italy), so that may not be a bad thing.
Not speaking for the military but for myself as a soldier and for the other members of the US military. We will never support a military junta against our government for any reason. If someone were to try to pull it off, our role will most likely to remove the junta, imprison them, and restore our original constitutional government. American servicemembers are too patriotic to support or even tolerate a junta.

Not speaking for the military but for myself as a soldier and for the other members of the US military. We will never support a military junta against our government for any reason. If someone were to try to pull it off, our role will most likely to remove the junta, imprison them, and restore our original constitutional government. American servicemembers are too patriotic to support or even tolerate a junta.

Heh, this amuses me. There would be more than a few soldiers willing to support a Junta, if they were bribed or coerced, or just wanted power, especialy some of the higher-ranking ones. It would happen in any military, and there'd be more of them in the US military because there's more soldiers. There's always someone to support each side, whether it be anti or pro-Junta.

Take a look at US history. How many people have died on the fool's errand of some asshole? Killing indians? Killing mexicans? Spaniards? Cubans? Germans? Germans again? Russians? Arabs?

The US was founded on exactly what it stopped being after Washington died. Anti-imperialism. A few thousand dead to cripple america enough so they can no longer pull their "police the world" bullshit sounds like a fine price to me. Hell, I'd die for that.

Basically, what I'm saying is, it won't stop at iraq. Or iran, if that happens. The US is driven by war, and it will keep on fighting. If one of those fights leaves them in a condition where they won't be able to fight for a long time, if not forever, well then go right ahead america, take the leap of faith into your death. You're dumb enough for it, after all, you did vote four more years for leaf-brain.

That's very, very true. But I think that Iran will be a problem, but if you start anything with Syria then you are, essentially, going to die. As is Isreal.

*edits*

See point above - as happened in the October Revolution.

Heh, this amuses me. There would be more than a few soldiers willing to support a Junta, if they were bribed or coerced, or just wanted power, especialy some of the higher-ranking ones. It would happen in any military, and there'd be more of them in the US military because there's more soldiers. There's always someone to support each side, whether it be anti or pro-Junta.
We have safeguards in place that prevent people who might potentially rebel against out government from even getting promoted or even staying in more than 10 years.
We also have laws against officers saying anything bad about the President or the Congress. If they do, it's a huge chunk of their years at Leavenworth.
And even if someone were to try it, it would squashed by the rest of us. We may not like the President's policies but we will not tolerate the forced overthrow of someone who was legitimately and democratically elected into office by the citizens of the United States.

We have safeguards in place that prevent people who might potentially rebel against out government from even getting promoted or even staying in more than 10 years.
We also have laws against officers saying anything bad about the President or the Congress. If they do, it's a huge chunk of their years at Leavenworth.
And even if someone were to try it, it would squashed by the rest of us. We may not like the President's policies but we will not tolerate the forced overthrow of someone who was legitimately and democratically elected into office by the citizens of the United States.

This isn't the first time an army has said "We'll never support a coup". That may change when 200,000 of your fellow servicemen have been wiped out in a war that makes almost no sense. I'm not talking about a Pinochet style coup, in which it's just a move to get some power-hungry people into the executive office. This is the kinda coup they have in Pakistan; the military stepping in to protect itself, and the country as a whole, from an inept political leader.

I have to say, if you are willing to blindly follow the President, you are no Patriot. You are a pawn.

The suggestion made earlier that the theocracy in Iran could be replaced by the Shah's successor is unrealistic.

It's been done before, in the 50's, when the US and UK sponsored a coup which overthrew the democratically elected leader, and reinstated the Shah as an increasingly brutal leader, sowing the seeds for The revolution in '79, and the taking of hostages as a safeguard there would not be another attempt at toppling a leader by the US.

The Shah's son has little support in Iran, and does not live in Iran, only having the support of Iranians who have not lived in the country since the revolution.

There are those who oppose the regime in Iran, but the pressure exerted on Iran, any bombing or invasion of Iran, and any attempt to impose a descendant of the Shah upon them will see those Iranians join their countrymen and women in rallying around their flag.

The political opposition in Iran that the US is said to be aiding is amongst them an Islamic Arab minority group whose kidnapping and fighting methods is not too dissimilar to that of those branded 'Al-Qaeda terrorists' in Iraq.

A repeat of Afghanistan timeline 80's?

As to a military coup in America and the imposing of a military junta, ask the people of Burma at present, Chile until recently, and Argentina and Poland until rather recently what living under a military junta is like.

Not pleasant. And just because we are talking about America does not make it somehow different and a factor to how that military junta would work.

Comparing it to a european model which would somehow make it 'ok' can conjure images of Nazi Germany, or Poland under it's military junta.

No, an overthrow of Bush can not come from the military without the people's aid and involvement, as military juntas like the power they grasp just a little too much and tend not to like relinquising it.

And remember, they have the tanks, they have the warplanes, they have the armed to the teeth men and women to probably back that up.

A People's revolt would be best, or an impeachment at the very least, I mean, the US impeached a president over an encounter with a woman in a dress, so why not over misleading the world on Iraq, the leaks over CIA agents and intelligence, phonetapping, and now reportedly wanting to nuke another country when there is other options?

This is the kinda coup they have in Pakistan; the military stepping in to protect itself, and the country as a whole, from an inept political leader.


Pakistan has still not recovered the form of democracy it once held.

It's now partial at best, Musharraff still runs the show.

Pakistan has still not recovered the form of democracy it once held.

It's now partial at best, Musharraff still runs the show.

But he did prevent a nuclear war with India over Kargil. In my opinion, life is much more valuable than any silly ideology. After all, the chances of there being something after you bite the dust are slim, so I think getting bravely slaughtered is a stupid waste of your life.

But he did prevent a nuclear war with India over Kargil.

Only for both countries to again approach the brink of nuclear war over the Indian Parliament building bombing, which was resolved with the help of external influence, which had that not happened, the Musharraff coup would only have delayed nuclear war by a couple of years.


In my opinion, life is much more valuable than any silly ideology.

It is the opinion of many, that life without freedom, is not worth living.


After all, the chances of there being something after you bite the dust are slim, so I think getting bravely slaughtered is a stupid waste of your life.

Oppression is also a waste of life, in terms of those who are killed under it, and those who live who prefer to be dead in comparison to seeing there loved ones become the latest political prisoners tortured, and perhaps never to be seen again.

It is the opinion of many, that life without freedom, is not worth living.

Then they do not truly grasp how valuable life is.



Oppression is also a waste of life, in terms of those who are killed under it, and those who live who prefer to be dead in comparison to seeing there loved ones become the latest political prisoners tortured, and perhaps never to be seen again.

It's a choice between a rock and a hard place, then.

Then they do not truly grasp how valuable life is.

Perhaps they have grasped how valuable it is, how it can not be treasured if it's enjoyment and worthwhile is stolen.


It's a choice between a rock and a hard place, then.

Narrowing it down to just between Nuclear War or Oppression?

How about neither?

Narrowing it down to just between Nuclear War or Oppression?

How about neither?

We only have about...oh, 7 months to cripple shrub. If the Republicans remain in control of Congress after the mid-terms, there is really nothing we can do. Do you think the Presidents own party would impeach him?

We only have about...oh, 7 months to cripple shrub. If the Republicans remain in control of Congress after the mid-terms, there is really nothing we can do. Do you think the Presidents own party would impeach him?

I would say that there are Republicans who are growing twitchy at Bush's actions, Republicans who fear that Bush may make the Republicans unelectable. I've seen them on websites, and there are murmurings amongst congressmen too.

Bush could still be impeached.

Pakistan has still not recovered the form of democracy it once held.

It's now partial at best, Musharraff still runs the show.partial??

the way I see it you are either a Democracy or not.. You either get to elect your President(PM)..or you dont.

Pakistan is a Dictatorship.. Just like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

partial??

the way I see it you are either a Democracy or not.. You either get to elect your President..or you dont.

And I'm not disagreeing, aside from President also being one choice of title for an elected leader, obviously.

The parliament was reconvened and then cancelled and then goes through the same cycle, I don't know where it stands now. By saying 'partial at best' I was referring to this parliament, where partial democracy, not democracy sometimes exists, undermined consistently by Musharraff.


Pakistan is a Dictatorship.. Just like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Agreed.

we're not going to bomb IRan... IF that happened it would be a UN thing (or that's what it looks like right now).

Given the UN's progress rate, Bush will be long out of office by the time the UN decides to act on Iran.

Besides... didn't the Ayatollahs (or whomever they are) say that if we were to invade them, it'd be a fiery hell with rivers of American blood? I guess they'd take the turbans off their heads, twist them up, and whip us with them. hehe