NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops


No.

was that post even slightly serious?

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

The top military brass couldn't tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia from their ass. Invading Iraq was stupid, invading Iran(which the US looks like it will do) is suicidial. The EU will be a superpower in about five years. The US on the other hand will be in decline, it's basically the USSR in '87

Nö.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey?

Now tell me the old chestnut from WWII about the ruthlessly-patriotic, near-inhuman Japanese schoolchildren fighting to the last US Servicemen with their slide-rulers, and how all that needless bloodshed was averted by nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Nö.

You just got umlauted, bitch!

:p

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

Either way, we get a stupid war.

Honestly, I doubt they knew the difference between Shi'ia and Sunni before the invasion.

I don't think the United States would've been able to take Iran as quickly or with as little casualties. For one thing, Iran is roughly 4 times the size of Iraq. Iran also has more than twice the population.

The main reason Iranians have been helping the Iraqis is because there's a nice large cluster of Arab Shi'ites right on the south western border of Iran. These people have obvious ties to the Iraqi Shi'ites, are very close, and therefore can easily head over into Iraq and help augment Shi'ia groups. If the USA had invaded Iran the Iraqis most likely would've only caused problems for them in the Western areas. They would not be willing to help the majority of insurgents, unlike our current scenario.

(Crappy post, I know. But I just realized what time it is and I wanna get to the cafeteria before the crowd does)

World War Two was a War ,this is a big pile of shit placed into a blender and poured all over the floor

Hellos,

if America were mostly isolationist again (before it decided joining axis powers?), it would be better off.

pull military and its budget from where it is, spend it internally making health care like Japan or Germany, education, and getting out of its wastefull-mind, monies going to develop a standard of living like Europe.

this road it is on now, is only the scenic route because of the facade the gov't has around it, people are not freaking out enough.

personal opionion,
*btw - im american in case you care? :rolleyes: *
-"Rafe"

no. the best strategy would be to stay out of the middle east altoghether.

No.

care to extrapolate?

For some insane reason, I confused Iran and Israel in my head when reading the first post.

So if you were thinking the first post couldn't get any dumber, then do what I did.

That said, I do see what the OP was getting at. Certainly, if I was going to go to war with the Middle East, I'd have hit Iraq first to (for the religion reason).

But I honestly don't think that was the reason for the Iraq war.

Iran would pwn the USA. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6328801.stm) Seriously, its a country twice the size of Iraq, three times as populous, four times as urbanised, and ten times more mountainous. Any adventurism in Iran would see hundreds of thousands of Americans end up in flag-draped coffins.

care to extrapolate?

No. And you're not using that word right.

Of course that's all well and good, but it works on the basis that it was imperative to go into the middle east in the first place.
Which I'm pretty sure most will agree it wasn't.


Also 300 of the little buggers!

<snip warmongering idiocy>
are you on crack? the best strategy would have been not to go to war with either of them, thereby not endangering any lives.

Hellos,

if America were mostly isolationist again (before it decided joining axis powers?), it would be better off.

pull military and its budget from where it is, spend it internally making health care like Japan or Germany, education, and getting out of its wastefull-mind, monies going to develop a standard of living like Europe.

this road it is on now, is only the scenic route because of the facade the gov't has around it, people are not freaking out enough.

personal opionion,
*btw - im american in case you care? :rolleyes: *
-"Rafe"


OHHHHHH...the US should be a reclusive socialist country. Thats just not america. Your saying that we need to change our entire economic structure to get to a lower level than where we are now. Like that of europe and japan. you forget my friend that the US still is the richest and most powerful country. There may be a backslide...but we're still heads and tails above europe and asia in terms of economic strength and military might. Screw iraq, we've still got planes and ships falling out of our asses...and we're wiping them with hundreds.

No. And you're not using that word right.

*applauds Zarakon*

Well said, sir. Kudos.

Iraq War: The biggest pile of shit since dinosaurs ruled the earth.

*applauds Zarakon*

Well said, sir. Kudos.

I win a lot of arguments by the fact that people give up. :)

The problem with the war in iraq is that the us is tied down by the geneva convention, whereas the iraqis can strike using any tatic they like. I would wholeheartly support systematic culling of iraqi civilians in retaliation for attacks on coalition forces, even if by killing 1000's of them it saves 1 of our soliders, then it was worth it.

If they had fear then they wouldn't attack, and if they still did then there wouldn't be many left to attack in a year.

More like the most stupidest strategy ever when combined with the blunders in Afg preceding the Iraqi invasion.

They should have had more US men instead of buying and using other warlords in which case they could have mounted a better operation in a quicker fashion at Tora Bora failing which they could have at least given OBL and co hot pursuit into FATA.

It almost seems like he was deliberately let go so that he can be the used as the boogeyman to pursue other interests like PNAC.

"The Princess Bride" comes to mind: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Everyone from Xerxes on has learned that the hard way.

Iraq was, however, the weak point in the Middle East, since it was (contrary to popular belief) not carved up arbitrarily. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia were not lumped together within one set of borders by unhappy coincidence. The British knew what they wrought, and did so to make the region so politically volatile that a serious resistance to imperial rule would be impossible due to sectarian tensions. All the great states of Europe did the same thing in Africa, often even going so far as to arbitrarily create artificial tribal divisions where none existed before (as in Rwanda and Burundi, and we all know how that worked out), thereby guaranteeing that no one would be able to gather enough popular support to kick the imperial powers-that-be out. When they finally got tired of managing these countries and granted their independence, they didn't bother to try to correct the past five centuries of abuse (understandable, given how hard it has been for us to undo it in Iraq, as an example), and the inevitable result is violence, instability, and corruption. Urbanization only compounds these problems, as the dividing lines between tribal territories can be as little as individual neighborhoods within cities, or even buildings or homes. To try to separate people out by their ethnicity and impose autonomy upon them is downright impossible, as well as an ethically repugnant idea.

The stages of colonization:
Conquer :mp5:
Screw up :headbang:
Leave :gundge:
Act surprised at the result :eek:

The problem with the war in iraq is that the us is tied down by the geneva convention, whereas the iraqis can strike using any tatic they like. I would wholeheartly support systematic culling of iraqi civilians in retaliation for attacks on coalition forces, even if by killing 1000's of them it saves 1 of our soliders, then it was worth it.

If they had fear then they wouldn't attack, and if they still did then there wouldn't be many left to attack in a year.

Quick! Bring this guy into the sunlight so he can turn to stone! :D

Iraq: The greatest military strategy ever?

Yes. For me to poop on.

The comparison militarily and politically of Iraq to Iran is patently ludicrous. The Iraqi army itself was destroyed in the first Gulf War, and Saddam was unable to properly rearm as a result of the sanctions, moreover he wasn't able to pay his troops in years either. So when facing British and US armored columns in the second invasion, it fell to bits, which isn't entirely surprising given it's position.

The insurgency itself is quite different, and could have been prevented by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in the first months of occupation. As part of the Pentagons 'debaathization' program, thousands of civil servants as well as the entire military was sacked for supposed links to Saddam's regime, in reality the program was indiscriminate.

Healthcare and all aspects of civil infrastructure all failed as a result of inexperienced staff, the healthcare CPA guy himself was chosen because he was pro-Bush and religiously conservative, ignoring the fact he has little experience. Also as a result the insurgency came about from the unemployed army divisions, and the current Iraqi army are all fresh recruits. By the time the CPA handed over authority to the Iraqi interim govt, they had squandered most of Iraqs' designated billions in illegal deals, and as a result we see Iraq the way it is today.

So to answer the question, no, Iraq isn't a good strategy, mainly because all resistance exists because of US incompetence.

I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

That's like the logic that says if you buy a large-size meal at a fast food restaurant, you're somehow saving money because you're getting more for your buck. Of course, you have less money in your pocket, then you would have with the smaller meal, or if you just didn't go to the fast food restaurant in the first place.

Iraq is one poorly chosen meal.

I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.

Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest?

Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest?

George Bush, give me back my legions!

Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest?

Nah..that was not a fuck up...that was a well executed trap...the Romans never thought that they could get stuffed...

I'll say it...Vietnam. This is not as bad in terms of allied deaths but there are remarkable similarities from the made up to the badly planned.

Nah..that was not a fuck up...that was a well executed trap...the Romans never thought that they could get stuffed...

Rumsfeld didn't think we would be caught in the middle of a civil war and stuck fighting a stalemate battle against an insurgency either; recall the "greeted as liberators" and "insurgency is in its last throes". We miscalculated bad and are now stuck in a position where we are getting subtly beat on by Iranian fighters.

I'll say it...Vietnam. This is not as bad in terms of allied deaths but there are remarkable similarities from the made up to the badly planned.

That would be better. The Teutoberg Forest was more of a one time mistake.

I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.
Hitler: "Okay, we're losing masses of planes to Britain and they've started bombing our cities, but we've taken care of things on the ground in West Europe and are helping the Italians take care of their problems. Hmm... Okay, Russia, here we come!"

Operation Barbarossa was tactical suicide. Not that I don't think Iraq is a pretty damned huge screwup, but Hitler went from a position of strength to a position of serious vulnerability in one overwhelmingly bad decision.

I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.

Vietname was 10 years, 50 something thousand American and 2 million vietnamese lives.....


What about Pearl Habour?

Hitler: "Okay, we're losing masses of planes to Britain and they've started bombing our cities, but we've taken care of things on the ground in West Europe and are helping the Italians take care of their problems. Hmm... Okay, Russia, here we come!"

Operation Barbarossa was tactical suicide. Not that I don't think Iraq is a pretty damned huge screwup, but Hitler went from a position of strength to a position of serious vulnerability in one overwhelmingly bad decision.

Just a thought, what if his troops got winter equipment and made it all the way into Moscow?

OHHHHHH...the US should be a reclusive socialist country. Thats just not america. Your saying that we need to change our entire economic structure to get to a lower level than where we are now. Like that of europe and japan. you forget my friend that the US still is the richest and most powerful country. There may be a backslide...but we're still heads and tails above europe and asia in terms of economic strength and military might. Screw iraq, we've still got planes and ships falling out of our asses...and we're wiping them with hundreds.

You obviously know nothing about military history.

Are you aware that, just before the Roman Empire fell, it was relying solely on it's military to prop it up amidst rampart political corruption, cultural backsliding, a very poor economy, and general incompatance as an empire? The only problem was that the Romans could only rely on the military for so long before it collapsed. Rome was wide open for the taking when the Legions finally crumbled at the hands of "Barbarian" hordes.

Sounds familiar?

Rumsfeld didn't think we would be caught in the middle of a civil war and stuck fighting a stalemate battle against an insurgency either; recall the "greeted as liberators" and "insurgency is in its last throes". We miscalculated bad and are now stuck in a position where we are getting subtly beat on by Iranian fighters.

Yeah...when the decision was made to disband the army it was pretty obvious things would go pear shaped...but even before the invasion we were predicting chaos...and what happened? Chaos.

That would be better. The Teutoberg Forest was more of a one time mistake.

Yeah and I wish it was not so.

Just a thought, what if his troops got winter equipment and made it all the way into Moscow?
Then he'd find himself seriously spread out and undefended on the Italian and French fronts through which a counterattack could eventually be launched. What's more, he'd have made almost no territorial or resource gain due to Stalin's remorseless razing of anything that could be of use to the Nazi invaders.

They did seige Stalingrad and Leningrad anyway. Fat lot of good that did.

Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest?
Don't look at me like that! It wasn't me!!! :p
The Teutoberg Forest was more of a one time mistake.
But the Romans learned from their mistake and never tried anything as foolish again afterwards.
The same can't be said for what's going on right now - after all, the lesson of Nam should somehow still be fresh to the mind?

Don't look at me like that! It wasn't me!!! :p

But the Romans learned from their mistake and never tried anything as foolish again afterwards.
The same can't be said for what's going on right now - after all, the lesson of Nam should somehow still be fresh to the mind?

Why should they remember Vietnam? Its not as if they'd been there....

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

I doubt it. It looks like Iraq was just an agenda policy of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all bearing from a "thesis" by some woman who cited Iraq as the cause of every major terrorist action since the 1993 WTC bombing, which is profoundly untrue.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey?
How has attacking Iraq turned the Iranian population into provincial governors of the Ottoman Empire?

The top military brass couldn't tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia from their ass. Invading Iraq was stupid, invading Iran(which the US looks like it will do) is suicidial. The EU will be a superpower in about five years. The US on the other hand will be in decline, it's basically the USSR in '87

Except the US continues to maintain strong economic growth, whereas the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had an economy that was actually shrinking. There are no ethnic separatist tensions, no internal conflict of any sort and a military that takes up less than 5% of the total economic output.

There's no comparison.

Except the US continues to maintain strong economic growth, whereas the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had an economy that was actually shrinking. There are no ethnic separatist tensions, no internal conflict of any sort and a military that takes up less than 5% of the total economic output.

There's no comparison.

Iran has a hell of a lot more in common with the USSR than we ever have. Its economy is falling apart more and more every day, and the government is rife with corruption and inefficiency. Give them a few more years and they're going to be in total collapse.

The US is actually far stronger economically now than it was in 1987.

Iran has a hell of a lot more in common with the USSR than we ever have. Its economy is falling apart more and more every day, and the government is rife with corruption and inefficiency. Give them a few more years and they're going to be in total collapse.

The US is actually far stronger economically now than it was in 1987.

Agreed.

I don't know where Soviestand gets his ideas from.

Agreed.

I don't know where Soviestand gets his ideas from.

Ever since he apparently became a Muslim, apparently he automatically assumes that the Middle Eastern nations are wonderful and the US is evil and weak.

Ever since he apparently became a Muslim, apparently he automatically assumes that the Middle Eastern nations are wonderful and the US is evil and weak.
The one thing he is right though is that it would be suicidal for the US to go into Iran, just not for the reasons listed.

Ever since he apparently became a Muslim, apparently he automatically assumes that the Middle Eastern nations are wonderful and the US is evil and weak.
Well, to be fair, it has been in general decline since the start of the millenium, though it looks like it's starting to recover.

Well, to be fair, it has been in general decline since the start of the millenium, though it looks like it's starting to recover.

That's true. But the very fact that it has recovered is a sign that we're far from declining.

That's economically, at least; I doubt the US will ever decline economically, but our international influence will decline just like every other world power has. After all, our economy is far less self-sustaining than it was in the past, and that means we have to be careful not to hurt our trading partners or we'll be damaged as well.

Well, to be fair, it has been in general decline since the start of the millenium, though it looks like it's starting to recover.
That would be far more impressive if the millenium hadn't started 6 years ago. ;)

Why should they remember Vietnam? Its not as if they'd been there....
:rolleyes: I wasn't talking about that Empire...

Vietname was 10 years, 50 something thousand American and 2 million vietnamese lives.....
Right, can't believe that slipped my mind. Bigger fuck-up, but probably better strategy. Then again, I'm not entirely sure if the invasion of Iraq even had anything that could be considered a strategy in anything other than the technical stance.


What about Pearl Habour?
Tactically it wasn't a bad idea. It was pretty much luck that it didn't manage to completely cripple the U.S. navy fleet in the Pacific.

I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.
How about having a hole on top one's Deathstar that will destroy the whole damn thing if just one person shoots into it?

That's pretty damn stupid.

Iran has a hell of a lot more in common with the USSR than we ever have. Its economy is falling apart more and more every day, and the government is rife with corruption and inefficiency. Give them a few more years and they're going to be in total collapse.

The US is actually far stronger economically now than it was in 1987.

Please quote several reputable sources for supposed Iran's corruption and economic decline, and be quick about it, or I will assume you are making it up to push a political point score.

The US on the other hand is extremely politically corrupt, with corporations basically buying their way into power (Republicans for a Texas Majority etc), the economy is in massive deficit, with most assets and wealth owned by foreign investors.

The top military brass couldn't tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia from their ass. Invading Iraq was stupid, invading Iran(which the US looks like it will do) is suicidial. The EU will be a superpower in about five years. The US on the other hand will be in decline, it's basically the USSR in '87

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Please quote several reputable sources for supposed Iran's corruption and economic decline, and be quick about it, or I will assume you are making it up to push a political point score.
Iran faces several key economic challenges, including high unemployment (11.5%), high inflation (15% annual), low GDP per capita ($8,900), low GDP growth (compared to other developing states, especially one with vast quantities of exportable oil reserves)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran

The US on the other hand is extremely politically corrupt, with corporations basically buying their way into power (Republicans for a Texas Majority etc), the economy is in massive deficit, with most assets and wealth owned by foreign investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_economy

There is no comparison.

:rolleyes: I wasn't talking about that Empire...

eh? Bush served in Vietnam? Don't think so...;)

The EU will be a superpower in about five years.


Greetings

The EU will never be a superpower, in military terms. the european Union is not willing to use their military power without an UN-resolution - most likely not even then, and besides from that the dont agree much - in any way.

The will to use your military power is the difference between a papertiger and a really tiger - EU has so many members with different agendas that every decision in reality is a compromise with the lowest risk of offending anyone.

eh? Bush served in Vietnam? Don't think so...;)
You don't want to understand. Never said he did. He stayed at home and played with fighter jets.

But the U.S. could have learned a lesson from Vietnam which might just have stopped them from doing something as stupid as invading Iraq.

Let me see if I understand this here.

The Bush Administration could have done something completely, incredibly and totally idiotic by invading Iran. Instead, they decided to do something simply idiotic by invading Iraq. Therefore, they are geniuses.

*head explodes*

You don't want to understand. Never said he did. He stayed at home and played with fighter jets.

But the U.S. could have learned a lesson from Vietnam which might just have stopped them from doing something as stupid as invading Iraq.

argh...ok...well it's not much of a jump to understand that I was not talking about the Romans! :p

What you say is pretty much what I was alluding to.

When we realised that Bushco was serious we start to point out some of the issues...of course we were naysayed...that there would be no insurrection, that Iraq would be up and running in no time at all...that the Iraqi's would see us as liberators...they of course have been conclusively proven wrong.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Not likely. Some Iraqi Shi'ites might have defected to Iran, but too many were being persecuted by Saddam to have much of a chance of helping. The Iranians also may be less hostile, by and large, to America, except when they try to act as occupiers and impose their brand of democracy on the Iranians. Emotions would be mixed - yes, they think the Ayatollah's a dictatorial asshole, but the Americans fucked them over before. So the Iranians would be less likely to turn their nation into a powder keg...but the operation may be harder and the Americans risk losing a potential ally they would have gained if the Iranians just solved their own problems.

All in all - both options suck.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

So your argument is this - the U.S. military merely shot itself in the leg when they also had the option of walking through a minefield while drunk. Therefore, the self-inflicted leg wound was a wonderful idea. Methinks the U.S. military needs to stop playing with guns, in that case.

So your argument is this - the U.S. military merely shot itself in the leg when they also had the option of walking through a minefield while drunk. Therefore, the self-inflicted leg wound was a wonderful idea. Methinks the U.S. military needs to stop playing with guns, in that case.

Or avoid drink and minefields altogether....

argh...ok...well it's not much of a jump to understand that I was not talking about the Romans! :p

What you say is pretty much what I was alluding to.

When we realised that Bushco was serious we start to point out some of the issues...of course we were naysayed...that there would be no insurrection, that Iraq would be up and running in no time at all...that the Iraqi's would see us as liberators...they of course have been conclusively proven wrong.
Hehe, no problem, mate.

The thing I don't understand is, if average Joes like you and I could foresee the trouble they were going to run into - why the hell didn't those in charge see it coming?
They either didn't care or were so detached from reality that they couldn't. Greeted as liberators with flowers... :rolleyes: Right!

Or avoid drink and minefields altogether....

Perhaps...although I was trying to imply that they avoided drink and minefields, or at least one or the other, and instead opted for the self-inflicted gunshot option, which is less painful and not potentially lethal but still a fucker of an injury.

Hehe, no problem, mate.

The thing I don't understand is, if average Joes like you and I could foresee the trouble they were going to run into - why the hell didn't those in charge see it coming?
They either didn't care or were so detached from reality that they couldn't. Greeted as liberators with flowers... :rolleyes: Right!

Politics and power. Pure and simple. It blinds people.

Perhaps...although I was trying to imply that they avoided drink and minefields, or at least one or the other, and instead opted for the self-inflicted gunshot option, which is less painful and not potentially lethal but still a fucker of an injury.

Yeah. I understand you.

Manatee on speed? That must be a hell of a sight!

You obviously know nothing about military history.

Are you aware that, just before the Roman Empire fell, it was relying solely on it's military to prop it up amidst rampart political corruption, cultural backsliding, a very poor economy, and general incompatance as an empire? The only problem was that the Romans could only rely on the military for so long before it collapsed. Rome was wide open for the taking when the Legions finally crumbled at the hands of "Barbarian" hordes.

Sounds familiar?

ummm...no it doesnt. If your implying that the US is only being propped up by its military you obviously know nothing about the US. Fact is the US has never been run by the Military. Thats called "illegal" here in the states. The last time martial law was actually carried out to its fullest extent was with lincoln in the early days of the civil war IN 1862. Last time i checked that was 150 years ago. Dont try to compare america to rome, its not even comparable. the world climate was completely different. And technically the US cant collapse. States cant secede so.......if we go by the constitution the union is eternal.

except when they try to act as occupiers and impose their brand of democracy on the Iranians.

America does not have a parliamentary system of government. iraqi democracy isnt US democracy.

ummm...no it doesnt. If your implying that the US is only being propped up by its military you obviously know nothing about the US. Fact is the US has never been run by the Military. Thats called "illegal" here in the states. The last time martial law was actually carried out to its fullest extent was with lincoln in the early days of the civil war IN 1862. Last time i checked that was 150 years ago. Dont try to compare america to rome, its not even comparable. the world climate was completely different. And technically the US cant collapse. States cant secede so.......if we go by the constitution the union is eternal.

no it isn't. If we go by the constitution, the constitution can be entirely revoked and a dictatorship monarchy installed.

And let's not forget the whole "Freedom for security" thing going around, THAT doesn't sound like rome in the slightest....no, not at all.

no. the best strategy would be to stay out of the middle east altoghether.

*thunderous applause*

ummm...no it doesnt. If your implying that the US is only being propped up by its military you obviously know nothing about the US. Fact is the US has never been run by the Military. Thats called "illegal" here in the states. The last time martial law was actually carried out to its fullest extent was with lincoln in the early days of the civil war IN 1862. Last time i checked that was 150 years ago. Dont try to compare america to rome, its not even comparable. the world climate was completely different. And technically the US cant collapse. States cant secede so.......if we go by the constitution the union is eternal.

US history much?

2005 and 1934 spring to mind...oh...and 1941...

Oh and as for the Constitution...the present incumbent of the Whitehouse must think it is nothing more than toilet paper.

US history much?

2005 and 1934 spring to mind...oh...and 1941...

Oh and as for the Constitution...the present incumbent of the Whitehouse must think it is nothing more than toilet paper.


oh, let's not forget 1942 and internment.

no it isn't. If we go by the constitution, the constitution can be entirely revoked and a dictatorship monarchy installed.

And let's not forget the whole "Freedom for security" thing going around, THAT doesn't sound like rome in the slightest....no, not at all.

and the chances of a dictator monarchy being installed. What are the odds of that...a billion to one. separation of powers prevents that. its the chicken and the egg paradox. A dictator can overthrow the rest of government, but the rest of government prevents a dictator. Its a safeguard agains such things.

And personally, i'd take increased security over freedom. I'd rather know that i can get on a plane safely without some blood thirsty anarchist blowing me up. Too much freedom you get somalia...not enough you get saudi arabia. The US is a happy medium. And i feel no threat.

and the chances of a dictator monarchy being installed. What are the odds of that...a billion to one. separation of powers prevents that. its the chicken and the egg paradox. A dictator can overthrow the rest of government, but the rest of government prevents a dictator. Its a safeguard agains such things.

I'm not talking about overthrowing. I'm not talking about violation of law. I am talking that the constitution in and of itself allows for the posibility of our ENTIRE system of government to be, legally, taken down, and a monarchy legally formed.



And personally, i'd take increased security over freedom. I'd rather know that i can get on a plane safely without some blood thirsty anarchist blowing me up. Too much freedom you get somalia...not enough you get saudi arabia. The US is a happy medium. And i feel no threat.

I feel more threats from the current administration than I feel from any terrorist.

US history much?

2005 and 1934 spring to mind...oh...and 1941...

Oh and as for the Constitution...the present incumbent of the Whitehouse must think it is nothing more than toilet paper.

you do realize that the constitution is open to interpretation. hell, the document is only 4 pages long. Its no where near as in depth as some other nations constitutions. and bush does have powers which are not stated in the consitution. Necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause. as much as you may hate to admit it, bush hasnt done anything which the consitution forbids him to do.

Necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause. as much as you may hate to admit it, bush hasnt done anything which the consitution forbids him to do.

neither the necessary and proper clause nor the supremacy clause deal with the executive, and neither grant additional powers. At best the necessary and proper clause only states that Congress (congress, not the executive) may take all proper steps to execute their powers already articulated. It's an actualizing clause, not an empowering clause.

The supremacy clause doesn't give ANYONE additional constitutional powers.

You fail at constitutional law.

you do realize that the constitution is open to interpretation. hell, the document is only 4 pages long. Its no where near as in depth as some other nations constitutions. and bush does have powers which are not stated in the consitution. Necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause. as much as you may hate to admit it, bush hasnt done anything which the consitution forbids him to do.

Seeing as you don't even remember (or knew) that martial law was declared in 2005 shows that you don't really have much knowledge of the subject.

Bit like your take on constitutional law...

Now when you have taken Civics 101 come back to us...

Lets look at the demographics of the middle east...shall we?

Iraq is predominately Shi'a. Followed by Sunni then Kurds. The kurds aren't important.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a.

In his state of the union address President Bush cited Iran Iraq and N. Korea as the axis of evil...yes? yes.

Now lets look at what would have happened if Bush had decided to invade Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq.

US invades Iran in March 2003. The huge ground invasion would go almost exactly as the Iraq war went. The massive shock and awe campaign and light ground casualties. The troops proceed with amazing speed through the iranian desert and enter Tehran around early April '03. The ayatola is overthrown and a weak central government is put in place. The insurgency follows. (Just like iraq...)

The only difference is that the insurgency would be aided the iraqi shi'a population. Not only would we have iran wich is something like 80% shi'a killing our troops but we would have the iraqi's (60%) helping them. Saddam wouldnt care, he's a sunni. We would have a hornet's nest of shi'a swarming around us at all times. Where as in iraq now, we dont have an overwhelming majority of Iranians mad at us. The shi'a population is aiding their brothers in Iraq and killing the sunni's more so than US troops.

Coud it be that in going to war with Iraq first, the Bush administration saved the lives of untold thousands of troops by keeping the Iranian Shi'a population at bey? The shi'a in iran dont care whats happening to the sunni's in iraq. But the shi'a in iraq would become wild dogs if their brothers in iran were being attacked. Did the top military brass really play the religion card right in this war?

I don't even know where to being with that, so I won't.

Hellos,

if America were mostly isolationist again (before it decided joining axis powers?), it would be better off.

Say what? Bush has done a lot of shitew stupid stuff, but deciding to join any "axis" has not been one of them...

pull military and its budget from where it is, spend it internally making health care like Japan or Germany, education, and getting out of its wastefull-mind, monies going to develop a standard of living like Europe.

You need to look into the Japanese healthcare system a bit better if you prefer it to the US.

this road it is on now, is only the scenic route because of the facade the gov't has around it, people are not freaking out enough.

:confused: Come again? That group of sentence fragments made no sense what so ever.

personal opionion,
*btw - im american in case you care? :rolleyes: *
-"Rafe"

:eek: I doubt that, due to what appears to be non-native English abilities.


I honestly can't think of a bigger fuck-up in military history than Iraq.

How about deciding to take a siesta along the sunny banks of the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou while not posting any sentries, thus allowing your army to be beaten by a force half it's size...

Just a thought, what if his troops got winter equipment and made it all the way into Moscow?

Or better yet, attacked on schedule in May instead of messing around in Yugoslavia and Albania and delaying it for 6 weeks. The sidelining of the main thrust on Moscow in order to secure the Ukrainian flank also added delays, but not doing so would have been a huge gamble.

How has attacking Iraq turned the Iranian population into provincial governors of the Ottoman Empire?

:) Spank you very much.

Let me see if I understand this here.

The Bush Administration could have done something completely, incredibly and totally idiotic by invading Iran. Instead, they decided to do something simply idiotic by invading Iraq. Therefore, they are geniuses.

*head explodes*

In effect, yes.

The real reason to invade Iraq was because the Afghanistan war was going poorly, and the American government needed something else to galvanise its citizens and distract them from problems at home. It may not have even been the Bush administration's fault; they could have been forced by the media corporations or something, I don't know. That, and people were still angry about 9/11 and needed a scapegoat. Fundamentalist Muslims claimed responsibility for it, so the US began attacking them wherever they were at.

Anyway.

How about deciding to take a siesta along the sunny banks of the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou while not posting any sentries, thus allowing your army to be beaten by a force half it's size...


Man, I forgot all about that one. Been awhile since I read anything on that war.

This is like saying "Compared to injecting yourself with black mamba poison, which you might have done, drinking a shot of drain-o was brilliant."

The US will continue tobe a superpower in about five years. The EU on the other hand will be in decline, it's basically the USSR in '87

Altered for accuracy.

Man, I forgot all about that one. Been awhile since I read anything on that war.

Being a good Texian and having been brought up not far from there, I'd find that one hard to forget. ;)