So what do they want us to do? by whozit

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So what do they want us to do?

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Sunday, February 22, 2009 04:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 728
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:53 PM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f367aada-fec8-11dd-b19a-000077b07658.html

Well what do they want us to do, invade?

Ask them nice not to make a bomb?

Have Barry make a really great speech that'll make Chris Mathews pee himself?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA

How bout leaving the fuck alone ?

Ever considered that option ?

Even if they had a bomb, even if they could deliver it, there's no way in hell they'd do it when the end result would be a glass lined crater where their country used to be.

If our multi-trillion dollar nuclear "deterrent" arsenal, isn't a deterrent, why the fuck did we buy and build it in the first place ?

Fuckin duh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How bout leaving the fuck alone ?

Ever considered that option ?

Even if they had a bomb, even if they could deliver it, there's no way in hell they'd do it when the end result would be a glass lined crater where their country used to be.

If our multi-trillion dollar nuclear "deterrent" arsenal, isn't a deterrent, why the fuck did we buy and build it in the first place ?

Fuckin duh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Thanks, Frem - Nice to see someone else actually gets it.

If the very first thing you do when you get a nuke is use it on somebody, that's also going to be the very LAST thing you do.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:06 PM

DREAMTROVE

I think they have an anti-missile system, but they also have brains. They have no intention of going to war at all. It would be nearly impossible to obliterate Iran as Hillary says she wants, because they have had a large number of off shore nukes for some time, including in Venezuela, capable of striking the US. So what, they just want to prove to us that they have a nuke because they've noticed a US pattern of not invading people like NK who have a nuke. It's their deterent, and it was a lot cheaper than ours. Contrary to popular believe, nuclear war scenarios don't go that far. After the first few nukes are lobbed, someone removes the leaders from power, and saner heads prevail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:14 PM

FREMDFIRMA

They wouldn't even have to do that, the results of a simulation based on this engagement back in 2002 showed that they can, and WILL kick our ass if we push it - we'll lose at least 20% of our fleet in the first four hours, if not more.

In the end, we'd wind up bogged into the same shit were up to our ass in out in Iran and Afghanistan, and AFTER losing most of a fleet and 20,000+ naval casualties, not to mention *every* carrier and all the aircraft and pilots on board.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35
http://www.slate.com/id/2080814/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
"At this point, the exercise was suspended and Blue's ships were "re-floated." There were many within the upper echelons of the Department of Defense that found the results displeasing, and it was decided to restart the wargame and change the rules of engagement."
Umm, sorry pentagon bitches, you don't get to do that when it's for real, and those are the lives of our friends and families you wanna risk cause you refuse to believe a scenario that comes out with any result but "American Wins".

That's the same bullshit as "home by xmas" and "flower throwing iraqis" - tell me folks, would YOU wanna risk 20,000+ lives and a substantial portion of our naval forces on the same kind of puffy little fantasies ?

Especially when the ugly realities have already been revealed, and then dismissed, by the folks in charge of making these decisions ?

And let's not forget they also got three Kilo class subs runnin around over there which can slam the Hormuz strait door on us quite easily as we have nothing to challenge them but overgrown monster nuke-boomers which are sitting ducks in that particular environment due to size and lack of experience.

And that's if the Russians DON'T back them up, which in and of itself is a friggin pipe dream.

We start fucking with Putins primary petroleum supply, and he *will* kick our balls through the ceiling tiles, all he has to do is hand off a shitload of Bazalt4K80's to complement the 29 Tor-M1 and S-300 anti-missle units they've already shipped previously, and watch the Iranians chew up our fleet for them.

Neither Phalanx, nor that crummy limited ammo, limited target, balky new anti-missle system is gonna do jack shit for stopping a 4K80, and even if they did, our forces would be easily swamped given that a good percentage of those ships are only a few steps removed from rusted out hulks, thus contributing to bad morale and poor maintainence on stuff that hasn't worked in years anyways - along with that whole "sitting duck" feeling it gives the Naval guys who *know* they're gonna be first to bite it, in ships that stand no chance of even defending themselves, much less each other.

Add in enough mounting hostility to raise real concerns about any potential harbor being safe, along with the simple fact that if they cut our fleet off from FUEL, it will ground everything but the carriers, and render even THOSE useless sitting ducks with nothing to fill the aircraft tanks with...

And you get the idea why I think our fleet sitting there in needless provocation is one of the dumbest fucking ideas since sending Bolton to the UN.

The days of "great murtherin battles" are OVER, dammit, right on the scrapheap of history along with the musketline (which, stupidly, we STILL train our troops to!) and human wave charges, which the advent of the machinegun made obsolete, but no general would admit till twenty fuckin years later.

And don't even get me started on what they did to Billy Mitchell for daring to suggest battleships were not the greatest thing since sliced bread anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

We keep tryin for fight a 4GW war with 2GW tactics, someone reasonably competent *IS* going to hand us our ass quite badly one of these days.

And I'd rather not that be some day soon.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:45 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Frem has it right -

"Even if they had a bomb, even if they could deliver it, there's no way in hell they'd do it when the end result would be a glass lined crater where their country used to be."

But I gathered from the article that they're not quite there yet. If they do make a bomb, what are they going to do with it, lob it at Israel? Come on, they lob one at Israel and we lob one at them - it is a no win situation. There wouldn't be enough virgins in Nirvana for them to make such an idiotic move.

It reminds me of a line from the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup - "We got guns, they got guns, all God's children got guns..."

Hail Freedonia!

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 2:36 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
DreamTrove wrote:

So what, they just want to prove to us that they have a nuke because they've noticed a US pattern of not invading people like NK who have a nuke.

Good to see I'm not alone out here. Our policy regarding nuclear proliferation is ludicrous: "If you WANT nukes, we invade; if you HAVE nukes, we'll talk." How the hell is that supposed to discourage people from pursuing nukes, when you've already made the case for them needing the damned things?

Quote:
ShinyGoodGuy wrote:

If they do make a bomb, what are they going to do with it, lob it at Israel? Come on, they lob one at Israel and we lob one at them - it is a no win situation.

And that's not even the likeliest scenario. *IF* Iran were to lob a nuke at Israel, or allow someone to truck one into the country, Israel certainly wouldn't need any help from us in the retaliatory arena; they have over 30 (no number has been confirmed, but reliable sources inside their weapons programs have confirmed AT LEAST thirty) hydrogen bombs - weapons with yields in the megatons, not mere kilotons like the weak-sister a-bombs.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 3:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I think we should invade. And soon. Of course, we should ONLY use the sons of the poorest, and darkest minorities. Yeah, that's what we should do.

Because that's how we roll. Right?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:08 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

You won't see any "Fortunate Sons" going to war anytime soon.

Let's see: rampant unemployment(check), sick economy(check), taxpayers being squeezed (check), bankers counting "their" money (check), Politicians involved in Ponzi schemes (check), Cats and Dogs sleeping together, mass hysteria (check).

Yep, it's that time of year......let's just blindly declare war on another enemy with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Forget about Bin Laden, we have bigger fish to fry.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:22 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Umm, sorry pentagon bitches, you don't get to do that when it's for real, and those are the lives of our friends and families you wanna risk cause you refuse to believe a scenario that comes out with any result but "American Wins".

There's always some aspect of arrogance in the defeat of any major empire. Never underestimate the intelligence of the enemy, because a smart resourceful enemy will always beat a complacent arrogant technologically supirior one.

Of course most enemies see a cruise missile and think "how do we build that?". The smart ones think "how do we defeat that?".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
You won't see any "Fortunate Sons" going to war anytime soon.

SGG

Tawabawho?

Sarah Palin's son is already in Iraq.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:25 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

I think we should invade. And soon.

Yup, nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, right? And it would cost, at most, seventeen billion or so, and after that initial cost, it would pay for itself with oil revenue...

Hey, why does this all sound so familiar?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:30 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

Basically on target. A couple things:

1. Russia's got its own oil supply. In central asia, they're just playing chess, like they always do. They'll still back Iran.

2. China has publicly announced that they will defend Iran if it is attacked with "all weapons on their arsenal." That public statement was published in the people's daily back in 2003, another big reason we haven't f^&ked with Iran. They actually do need the oil. They also need the connecting passage through pakistan, and so you better bet that China is arming the pakistanis against us.

Other underreported news:

We withdrew our fleet from the gulf a couple years ago because Iran asked us to. That says something about the balance of power. We didn't do it to be nice.

Taliban has made in Russia stamped on the side.

This is the most utterly hopeless conflict that the US has ever gotten into. Neither Russia nor China can afford to have the US with a stronghold in asia, controlling the world's oil supply, and launching attacks against their satellite states.

The US vs. Iran, according to the pentagon, is already Iran wins. The US vs. Iran, Russia, and China, is beyond moronic.

Here's where the idiocy is coming from, imho: The assymetrical warfare crowd. They are so convinced in the superiority of US military machines that they think they're invincible. Never mind that a lot of those cutting edge parts say made in japan on the bottom, and are also being sold to China and Russia, there's also the issue that you can't win a war with robots unless your robots are going to set up a govt.

My prediction remains the same. If some idiot nukes Iran, they will get return fire from another country. The 120 black market nukes are not sitting around at a warehouse, they're parked in countries around the world, and aimed at the US and Israel mostly, as the places that people see attacks as coming from, and I'm guessing they're located physically in countries we can't retaliate against for political reasons, and they are owned by nations that see themselves as targets, and have a lot of money, top on that list is Iran. Saudis probably have a couple as well. No one sold any to Saddam because no one trusted him. People don't trust Chavez, so I would say that the local Iranians keep tight control, in cooperation with the local Chinese.

IOW, we are so fucked.

On a lighter note I see that one of my favorite political campaigns, which actually called itself the "lose the war" campaign has won over in Pakistan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:43 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike

Quote:

Good to see I'm not alone out here. Our policy regarding nuclear proliferation is ludicrous: "If you WANT nukes, we invade; if you HAVE nukes, we'll talk." How the hell is that supposed to discourage people from pursuing nukes, when you've already made the case for them needing the damned things?

There's an added complication, as my sister put it, "the US has failed to realize that Iran has cards to turn in."

Rap, I think you need to use the [sarcasm] brackets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:43 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mike

Quote:

Good to see I'm not alone out here. Our policy regarding nuclear proliferation is ludicrous: "If you WANT nukes, we invade; if you HAVE nukes, we'll talk." How the hell is that supposed to discourage people from pursuing nukes, when you've already made the case for them needing the damned things?

There's an added complication, as my sister put it, "the US has failed to realize that Iran has cards to turn in."

Rap, I think you need to use the [sarcasm] brackets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 8:36 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike

Quote:

Good to see I'm not alone out here. Our policy regarding nuclear proliferation is ludicrous: "If you WANT nukes, we invade; if you HAVE nukes, we'll talk." How the hell is that supposed to discourage people from pursuing nukes, when you've already made the case for them needing the damned things?

There's an added complication, as my sister put it, "the US has failed to realize that Iran has cards to turn in."

Indeed. In this sense, Iran is like Cuba, only with a shitload of oil. We in America seem to think that EVERYONE in the world is on our side and against Iran, just as we seem to think that about Cuba. What we refuse to see - because we won't talk to anyone about it - is that MOST of the world still deals with both of those countries, still trades with them, and is only mildly concerned about either of them. They're more concerned about OUR attitude towards Iran than they are about any danger Iran may be to its neighbors.

And NOBODY is too keen on the U.S. having a stranglehold on the Straits of Hormuz. Anything we do regarding Iran is going to have an effect with almost everything else we do with ANY other nation. China is on Iran's side because they need the oil and the trade routes. Russia is on Iran's side simply because it amuses them to be a thorn in our side without us being able to do anything about it, much as we did to them in Afghanistan way back when.

We *could* invade Iran; we really could. Their military probably wouldn't even be that great an obstacle. But such a move would likely be the end of the U.S. as you and I know it. And that will have nothing to do with Iran's military. People like 'Rap and Hero want to fight them now, thinking it will be easier - but that time is long past. The time to do it easy was about 50 years ago, at the end of WWII.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:23 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Indeed. In this sense, Iran is like Cuba, only with a shitload of oil. We in America seem to think that EVERYONE in the world is on our side and against Iran, just as we seem to think that about Cuba. What we refuse to see - because we won't talk to anyone about it - is that MOST of the world still deals with both of those countries, still trades with them, and is only mildly concerned about either of them. They're more concerned about OUR attitude towards Iran than they are about any danger Iran may be to its neighbors.

I think the reaction to both is interesting. Iran and Cuba were both fairly brutal America friendly, dare I say virtual puppet regimes, then they dared to rise up and install their own governments, that weren't American friendly any more. DARED to put their own governments into power, like they have some right to decide their own government.

The real irony is that if America hadn't acted like such a big bully to Cuba for years, giving Castro a bogey man, his regime would likely have collapsed years ago. You yanks are your own worst enemy when it comes to your foreign policy...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 6:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mike, I agree basically, but I must nitpick

1. in spite of pentagon sims saying that Iran would win every scenario, our guys believe in robots.

2. Iran has one of the world's most powerful and advanced military forces. Their special forces outnumber our regular infantry in the middle east. Their total reserves outnumber ours massively. They can mobilize 14 million, and their technology is very impressive. Their first targets would the US fleet, central command in qatar and the iraqi green zone, that would be crippling to us. They might take out our kabul govt. and bagram.

3. they have decent anti aircraft and anti-missile systems, and their counter insurgency is way better than ours. Several spy missions have been thwarted in minutes, we haven't had a single flyover, and probably couldn't. They royally embarrassed the brits just to show them up. They don't do that when we try, they keep it on the DL because they don't want a US-Iran incident.

4. Russia is more than humoring itself. They don't want a US powerbase in central asia. Neither does china. This would be great for US oil control or launching attacks.

5. It's not just the oil, though that secured them china, they have overseas weapons which they've purchased, I'm not posting that information here. I know a lot of iranians. But I think it's now public knowledge that they maintain missile silos in venezuela. They have bases in other countries, and probably... fill in the blank, think late era soviet technology dotted at fill in the black locations. I'm just saying it would be an astoundingly bad idea.

If you look into their military capability, it's really quite impressive, this is no slouch, it wouldn't be a cakewalk, all other things being equal. If we went in on foot, we'd be slaughtered. Iran has spent the last 20 years preparing for a US invasion. They thought it was the inevitable result of defeating saddam hussein, who they say was put up to it, and armed, by the US.

US military is no slouch either, but I wouldn't think that we really stand a chance. Even in a full on nuclear assault, I think the retaliation would make all but the most insane cheney in a bunker us govt. stop. I'm virtually certain they can hit the US with a nuke, not yet from Iran, but they don't need to do it from Iran. 4gw, right?

The US is sitting down to talks with Iran because it's stuck. My only fear on this front is that Israel is occasionally led by the suicidally insane. I used to agree with Frem's glass map scenario, but after seeing what they have, i'm not so sure. I think that of Israel's 200 nukes, they would never fire them all, and they might hit 10% delivery. They would never be able to do it by aircraft, so targeting would be tricky. They would hit some of Iran with nukes. I think it would take one retaliatory strike to remove Israel. Israel, as a warmonger, doesn't have the stomach for war. if they suffer even minor casualties, they panic and drop everything. It would be a short exchange, there would still be an israel, and an iran, but it would be an israel that knew it couldn't win.

Israel used to have a missile defense system. It was built for NY to defend after 9.11, but given to israel for free instead. Israel sold it to pakistan for 250 million, and now we don't know where it is. Some have said Pakistan, Iran, even N. Korea.

I guess what they really have over us are two things: Allies, and organization. We spend a trillion a year or so now on defense, but much of the non-personel is going to pure corruption, and almost nothing is going into defensive capability, and less and less to manpower..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:02 AM

WHOZIT

If all of you recall during the election, the Gaffe Master said that Barry "will be tested", and that what he'll do will drive his ratings into the toilet. He is not removing troops from that part of the world yet is he.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE