Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Preparing for War With Iran
- Thread starter ryan86
- Start date
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I'm not intimately familiar with US politics, but the country hasn't yet degraded to the point where they elect people incapable of using the written word... has it?
And professionals are people who get paid to do things.
In that case then, I actually am a professional political....something. I'm not sure what the official title would be.
For people that are curious about Ryan's statements, yeah a lot of what he says is logical, but a lot of it also is pure speculation. A lot of it comes off like he watched a fairly good deal of political talk shows and formed his statements from there.
And Ryan, don't quote me or respond to me on this. I don't like you.
In that case then, I actually am a professional political....something. I'm not sure what the official title would be.
For people that are curious about Ryan's statements, yeah a lot of what he says is logical, but a lot of it also is pure speculation. A lot of it comes off like he watched a fairly good deal of political talk shows and formed his statements from there.
And Ryan, don't quote me or respond to me on this. I don't like you.
If you read all 7 parts (plus the continuations) of my analysis, you would know that , that only comes from sombody who studies the hell out of it. Fox news watchers sure watch a hell of a lot, but do you think they could repeat in-depth what I wrote? NO... And normal news watchers dont have the attention span to understand the diference in the sects of the muslimn world, who belongs to what council, how to put in place a military strategy, or the politics of the arab and persion nations. This stuff is my passion, Not talking heads.
And now, for the entertainment of all, I shall present a superior, better informed and better written analysis of the situation in Iran. Unlike Ryan I do not have a passionate interest in the subject, or really any interest at all, but I do have access to Wikipedia and a fully functioning brain.
Excuse me if I do not break my commentary down into bite size chunks. I generally assume my audience to be in possession of an intellect that measures above room temperature, and as such to be capable of reading quite long words for quite a long time. If this method of post construction causes you problems then may I recommend taking a break at the end of each paragraph to slap yourself in the face.
What am I talking about again? Oh yes, Iran. Lead with your conclusion and make the rest up from there is a typical essay strategy that has served me will, so allow me to pluck my position from the ether.
There is absolutely zero chance of any significant hostilities breaking out in Iran inside of the next decade. If hostilities do happen then it will be in the form of civil war (which is an inevitable but extremely distant prospect) and not in the form of a foreign occupation. Such an occupation would be logistically, politically and diplomatically impossible to bring about for a number of reasons that I will outline bellow.
Reason the first: People will not support an expensive military action during a time of recession. This isn't a time of recession and anyone who says otherwise is chronically ******ed, but the economy is still getting its slump on and as such there is no western nation outside of Israel what would support military action against Iran.
Libya was a smaller, weaker and more unstable nation led gripped by civil war whose leader publicly announced his intention to slaughter his own citizens, and the citizens of the international community made it abundantly clear that they would not accept any level of occupation.
A military incursion in Iran would be more time consuming and more expensive, given that they have 500,000 men under arms with a further 1.8 million potential reserves. In addition, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, the Iranian armed forces are not utterly incompetent. They are well conditioned and equipped, and as such an occupation of the country would be both time consuming and hugely expensive in terms of fiscal cost and casualties. There is absolutely no prospect of Western populations warming to the notion of invading Iran, and as such it will not happen.
Reason the second: The international community will never go for it.
Europe is rather distracted at the moment. China will never support international action breaching national sovereignty, and depends on Iran for oil imports. The best case scenario (from a warmonger's perspective) is for them to abstain on any security counsel vote, although I would consider such a situation unlikely in the extreme. Russia is much the same, but with even less chance of Russia supporting action against them since they view Iran as a check against Turkish expansionist tendencies. The Arab league refuses to sanction military action against Syria despite them having shot over 5,000 of their own citizens, so them coming down hard on Iran is never going to happen - you write like a dyslexic thirteen-year-old so I didn't understand most of what you were trying to say, but I did note your comical lack of understanding of the Arab world. The denizens Middle East is not going to support the wholesale invasion of a major Muslim country. Turkey might be up for it, but there extensive conservative Muslim citizenry never would be. There is nobody, with the possible exception of Israel, who is going to be in favour of military action against Iran.
Reason the third: It's all rhetoric
So why are stupid people suddenly running around waving their arms, talking like there is a possibility of a war? Five minutes rational analysis confirms to us that it is not going to happen, but nevertheless the children are getting excited.
Partly it's because of the increasingly hostile rhetoric coming out of the White House. Shock of shocks, as an election year approaches the political parties begin taking a more hard line stance on Iran. Haven't seen that since... every election since I've been alive. There are six-and-a-half-million Jews in the US, and in this enlightened age their talents are not simply limited to circumcision and money lending. They also present a very significant block of potential swing voters who are courted extensively every four years by the powers that be.
Then there's Iran's behaviour, violating yet more sanctions. This might be significant, except it's what Iran's been doing for decades. At this point it's little more than international trolling. It's why they condemned UK police for using violence during the London riots, it's why Ahmadinejad gives those comical rants at the UN and it's why the administration is now threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormus (something that it is physically impossible for them to do). The sanctions Iran violate are of very limited relevance for such an oil rich nation, and it is generally accepted that publicly violating them helps the regime to retain public support. It's been the consensus among enlightened commentators for years that if the west really wanted to "democratize" Iran then the best thing they could do would be to leave it the fuck alone and let the recurring youth movements take their course.
So yeah, neither side wants a war. Neither side can afford a war. Neither side requires a war. There will not be a war. For you to spend half a dozen posts ranting about the logistics of an impossible conflict only serves to show that, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you cram, you lack the faintest clue how things work in the real world. Put down the Tom Clancy conspiracy novels and pick up an actual book. Or better yet take a non-fictitious degree, since every source I checked had UT offering approximately zero political science degrees, preferring the government umbrella instead.
Enjoy.
Excuse me if I do not break my commentary down into bite size chunks. I generally assume my audience to be in possession of an intellect that measures above room temperature, and as such to be capable of reading quite long words for quite a long time. If this method of post construction causes you problems then may I recommend taking a break at the end of each paragraph to slap yourself in the face.
What am I talking about again? Oh yes, Iran. Lead with your conclusion and make the rest up from there is a typical essay strategy that has served me will, so allow me to pluck my position from the ether.
There is absolutely zero chance of any significant hostilities breaking out in Iran inside of the next decade. If hostilities do happen then it will be in the form of civil war (which is an inevitable but extremely distant prospect) and not in the form of a foreign occupation. Such an occupation would be logistically, politically and diplomatically impossible to bring about for a number of reasons that I will outline bellow.
Reason the first: People will not support an expensive military action during a time of recession. This isn't a time of recession and anyone who says otherwise is chronically ******ed, but the economy is still getting its slump on and as such there is no western nation outside of Israel what would support military action against Iran.
Libya was a smaller, weaker and more unstable nation led gripped by civil war whose leader publicly announced his intention to slaughter his own citizens, and the citizens of the international community made it abundantly clear that they would not accept any level of occupation.
A military incursion in Iran would be more time consuming and more expensive, given that they have 500,000 men under arms with a further 1.8 million potential reserves. In addition, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, the Iranian armed forces are not utterly incompetent. They are well conditioned and equipped, and as such an occupation of the country would be both time consuming and hugely expensive in terms of fiscal cost and casualties. There is absolutely no prospect of Western populations warming to the notion of invading Iran, and as such it will not happen.
Reason the second: The international community will never go for it.
Europe is rather distracted at the moment. China will never support international action breaching national sovereignty, and depends on Iran for oil imports. The best case scenario (from a warmonger's perspective) is for them to abstain on any security counsel vote, although I would consider such a situation unlikely in the extreme. Russia is much the same, but with even less chance of Russia supporting action against them since they view Iran as a check against Turkish expansionist tendencies. The Arab league refuses to sanction military action against Syria despite them having shot over 5,000 of their own citizens, so them coming down hard on Iran is never going to happen - you write like a dyslexic thirteen-year-old so I didn't understand most of what you were trying to say, but I did note your comical lack of understanding of the Arab world. The denizens Middle East is not going to support the wholesale invasion of a major Muslim country. Turkey might be up for it, but there extensive conservative Muslim citizenry never would be. There is nobody, with the possible exception of Israel, who is going to be in favour of military action against Iran.
Reason the third: It's all rhetoric
So why are stupid people suddenly running around waving their arms, talking like there is a possibility of a war? Five minutes rational analysis confirms to us that it is not going to happen, but nevertheless the children are getting excited.
Partly it's because of the increasingly hostile rhetoric coming out of the White House. Shock of shocks, as an election year approaches the political parties begin taking a more hard line stance on Iran. Haven't seen that since... every election since I've been alive. There are six-and-a-half-million Jews in the US, and in this enlightened age their talents are not simply limited to circumcision and money lending. They also present a very significant block of potential swing voters who are courted extensively every four years by the powers that be.
Then there's Iran's behaviour, violating yet more sanctions. This might be significant, except it's what Iran's been doing for decades. At this point it's little more than international trolling. It's why they condemned UK police for using violence during the London riots, it's why Ahmadinejad gives those comical rants at the UN and it's why the administration is now threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormus (something that it is physically impossible for them to do). The sanctions Iran violate are of very limited relevance for such an oil rich nation, and it is generally accepted that publicly violating them helps the regime to retain public support. It's been the consensus among enlightened commentators for years that if the west really wanted to "democratize" Iran then the best thing they could do would be to leave it the fuck alone and let the recurring youth movements take their course.
So yeah, neither side wants a war. Neither side can afford a war. Neither side requires a war. There will not be a war. For you to spend half a dozen posts ranting about the logistics of an impossible conflict only serves to show that, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you cram, you lack the faintest clue how things work in the real world. Put down the Tom Clancy conspiracy novels and pick up an actual book. Or better yet take a non-fictitious degree, since every source I checked had UT offering approximately zero political science degrees, preferring the government umbrella instead.
Enjoy.
And now, for the entertainment of all, I shall present a superior, better informed and better written analysis of the situation in Iran. Unlike Ryan
Did you actualy read anything I wrote? Because I know you didnt with the way you responded. I never said anything about a ground invasion, infact I repeatedly argued against it and gave many reasons.
I challenge you to name ONE incorrect statment I made in my analysis of the muslim world. Go back through and try and find ONE. And I gave a 7 part analysis including several continuations of other post. So it was probably 9 or 10 post, dis-regarding my replies to you guys in the counting. How can you call me un-informed? If a person can break down the middle east in the way I did, and your only responce is to challenge something I never said is proof you never read it.
And Saudia Arabia is mortal enemies with Iran and actually beeged us to "cut the head off the snake" and attack Iran. And if you need a source for that...
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
This should be entertaining.
And my god have you ever even attended a 4 year university?
It's universaly known that the degree is technicaly a Bachelors of Arts. Many non-specialized degrees will not actualy say your course field you idiot. The degree plan was the studdy guide based on political science when you chose a government major.
You just really make yourself look like an ass. How the hell can you tell me about my own damn school? You dont even understand the universal lingo used by college majors. SO SOP IT... ESPECIALY IF YOU KNOW, THAT YOU DONT KNOW BETER.
It's universaly known that the degree is technicaly a Bachelors of Arts. Many non-specialized degrees will not actualy say your course field you idiot. The degree plan was the studdy guide based on political science when you chose a government major.
You just really make yourself look like an ass. How the hell can you tell me about my own damn school? You dont even understand the universal lingo used by college majors. SO SOP IT... ESPECIALY IF YOU KNOW, THAT YOU DONT KNOW BETER.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
As someone who holds a degree in US history and a minor in Political Science, I am just gonna grab a bowl of popcorn, kick back, and enjoy.
I'll hold up my BA in Poli Sci from the University of Kentucky and join you in that.
This should be entertaining.
Only if an abattoir is your idea of a good time.
Did you actualy read anything I wrote? Because I know you didnt with the way you responded. I never said anything about a ground invasion, infact I repeatedly argued against it and gave many reasons.
I challenge you to name ONE incorrect statment I made in my analysis of the muslim world. Go back through and try and find ONE. And I gave a 7 part analysis including several continuations of other post. So it was probably 9 or 10 post, dis-regarding my replies to you guys in the counting. How can you call me un-informed? If a person can break down the middle east in the way I did, and your only responce is to challenge something I never said is proof you never read it.
And Saudia Arabia is mortal enemies with Iran and actually beeged us to "cut the head off the snake" and attack Iran. And if you need a source for that...
I read your posts insofar as doing so was possible. As I mentioned before, you write like a dyslexic child, shifting between amateurish and illegible.
As for evidence that you lack a basic comprehension of the Muslim world... well where do I start?
There was your claim that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as elected by the Iranians in 2003 when the election actually happened in 2005. Anyone possessing knowledge of what they are talking about would know that, but a person trying to pillage Wikipedia might get confused since the man won a mayoral election in '03. There's my one fact. Apologise now.
Then there was your claim that Egypt would serve as an overt ally in an offensive against Iran. Not only does this display cultural misunderstanding, it also suggesting that you haven't been watching the news recently. Egypt is more unstable at present than it has ever been, lacks a recognised authority and is in no position to lend support to any military cause anywhere in the world.
The most obvious sign of your ignorance of course comes from your claim that the US could depend on Arab support for military action in Iran. To claim such demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about the Middle East, probably stemming from you never having actually spoken to anyone from that region. The prevailing belief across large sections of of the Arab world is that the US is not conducting a war on terror, but rather a war on Islam. At a time when Arab regimes are falling apart by the day, no regime is going to infuriate its population by joining a crusade against another Muslim country.
Nations like Suadi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morroco, Jordan or Oman (who you claim would be overt allies) all refused to participate in Libya where there was an immanent threat of genocide, and are declining to take action against Syria despite them very obviously gunning down their own citizens. Connect the dots. That's not even getting into the fact that many countries in the region privately view Iran and Syria as a counterbalance to the expanding US influence in the west.
Is that enough for you?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
And people wonder why I enjoy getting in fights in the Impact LDs.
Again you are total wrong.
We got the unnanomous support of the arab league to attack Lybia. Do know who the member are? I'll name you off the one's I can remember off the top of my head. Their are 22, but here are a few:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Oman
UAE
Bahrain
Yemon
Quatar
Kuwai
morocco
W got a unanomous 21-0 consent for Nato to impose a no-fly-zone and get rid of the lybian dictator.
The exact military involvment by arab nations is classified, but we do know that the UAE, Dubi, Bahrain, and Quatar lended direct military assets froms planes to money to bases.
And Saudi Arabia is also mortal enemies with Lybia and closed their diplomatic relations with Lybia, after they tried to assasinate the (Then) Crown Prince, and now King Abdulla, in 2004. Are you ******ed enough to think they didnt support us? And they have even worse relations with Iran. They begged us to take out Iran. Go look it up.
And that was a mistake on my part about MA, he was "elected" in '05., but the way he got their, im still correct
We got the unnanomous support of the arab league to attack Lybia. Do know who the member are? I'll name you off the one's I can remember off the top of my head. Their are 22, but here are a few:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Oman
UAE
Bahrain
Yemon
Quatar
Kuwai
morocco
W got a unanomous 21-0 consent for Nato to impose a no-fly-zone and get rid of the lybian dictator.
The exact military involvment by arab nations is classified, but we do know that the UAE, Dubi, Bahrain, and Quatar lended direct military assets froms planes to money to bases.
And Saudi Arabia is also mortal enemies with Lybia and closed their diplomatic relations with Lybia, after they tried to assasinate the (Then) Crown Prince, and now King Abdulla, in 2004. Are you ******ed enough to think they didnt support us? And they have even worse relations with Iran. They begged us to take out Iran. Go look it up.
And that was a mistake on my part about MA, he was "elected" in '05., but the way he got their, im still correct
I have a cordless keyboard that is guided by a USB devise so sometimes i type too fast and skip letters.
So we got 21 ARAB nation support, OVERTLY.
And Saudi Arabia just re-enstated full diplomatic relations with Lybia, recognizing what we did as legit.
You just continue to make your-self look uninformed.
I missed ONE detail, and i already knew it. But I can't edit. I confused Mahmouds '05 "Election" with '03. But If that is all you got considering the 9 or 10 page analysis I wrote... You are PATHETIC!
So we got 21 ARAB nation support, OVERTLY.
And Saudi Arabia just re-enstated full diplomatic relations with Lybia, recognizing what we did as legit.
You just continue to make your-self look uninformed.
I missed ONE detail, and i already knew it. But I can't edit. I confused Mahmouds '05 "Election" with '03. But If that is all you got considering the 9 or 10 page analysis I wrote... You are PATHETIC!
Again you are total wrong.
We got the unnanomous support of the arab league to attack Lybia. Do know who the member are? I'll name you off the one's I can remember off the top of my head. Their are 22, but here are a few:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Oman
UAE
Bahrain
Yemon
Quatar
Kuwai
morocco
W got a unanomous 21-0 consent for Nato to impose a no-fly-zone and get rid of the lybian dictator.
The exact military involvment by arab nations is classified, but we do know that the UAE, Dubi, Bahrain, and Quatar lended direct military assets froms planes to money to bases.
And Saudi Arabia is also mortal enemies with Lybia and closed their diplomatic relations with Lybia, after they tried to assasinate the (Then) Crown Prince, and now King Abdulla, in 2004. Are you ******ed enough to think they didnt support us? And they have even worse relations with Iran. They begged us to take out Iran AND TO "CUT OFF THE HEAD OF THE SNAMKE".
HAD TO RUB IT IN SOME MORE YOU POOR DEFEATED DEBATER.
Canadian Ninja
Dark Match Jobber
Again you are total wrong.
We got the unnanomous support of the arab league to attack Lybia. Do know who the member are? I'll name you off the one's I can remember off the top of my head. Their are 22, but here are a few:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Oman
UAE
Bahrain
Yemon
Quatar
Kuwai
morocco
W got a unanomous 21-0 consent for Nato to impose a no-fly-zone and get rid of the lybian dictator.
The exact military involvment by arab nations is classified, but we do know that the UAE, Dubi, Bahrain, and Quatar lended direct military assets froms planes to money to bases.
And Saudi Arabia is also mortal enemies with Lybia and closed their diplomatic relations with Lybia, after they tried to assasinate the (Then) Crown Prince, and now King Abdulla, in 2004. Are you ******ed enough to think they didnt support us? And they have even worse relations with Iran. They begged us to take out Iran. Go look it up.
And that was a mistake on my part about MA, he was "elected" in '05., but the way he got their, im still correct
Just going to point out, the US didn't get a vote from NATO or the Arab League to enforce a no-fly zone over, nor attack, Libya. The United Nations removed Gadaffi's Libya from the member nations, gained a unanimous vote for a no-fly zone over Libya, which was enforced by participating UN Member nations. The United States after roughly a week handed the reigns of their military action at sea and in the air to the UN and had little involvement then what was outlined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. No members the UN attacked Gadaffi's Libya on land, but took out specific air fields to help protect protestors from being bombed. But other then that, there was NO military action taken from any UN forces in Libya. All combatants were from Libya, either supporters of Gadaffi or rebels.
Again you are total wrong.
We got the unnanomous support of the arab league to attack Lybia. Do know who the member are? I'll name you off the one's I can remember off the top of my head. Their are 22, but here are a few:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Oman
UAE
Bahrain
Yemon
Quatar
Kuwai
morocco
W got a unanomous 21-0 consent for Nato to impose a no-fly-zone and get rid of the lybian dictator.
The exact military involvment by arab nations is classified, but we do know that the UAE, Dubi, Bahrain, and Quatar lended direct military assets froms planes to money to bases.
And Saudi Arabia is also mortal enemies with Lybia and closed their diplomatic relations with Lybia, after they tried to assasinate the (Then) Crown Prince, and now King Abdulla, in 2004. Are you ******ed enough to think they didnt support us? And they have even worse relations with Iran. They begged us to take out Iran AND TO "CUT OFF THE HEAD OF THE SNAKE".
ANOTHER VICTORY LAP!!!
Just going to point out, the US didn't get a vote from NATO or the Arab League to enforce a no-fly zone over, nor attack, Libya. The United Nations removed Gadaffi's Libya from the member nations, gained a unanimous vote for a no-fly zone over Libya, which was enforced by participating UN Member nations. The United States after roughly a week handed the reigns of their military action at sea and in the air to the UN and had little involvement then what was outlined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. No members the UN attacked Gadaffi's Libya on land, but took out specific air fields to help protect protestors from being bombed. But other then that, there was NO military action taken from any UN forces in Libya. All combatants were from Libya, either supporters of Gadaffi or rebels.
The Arab league voted 21-0 for the UN to enforce a No-Fly-Zone. The Security Council voted to aprove it, and with so much Arab support, Russia and China obstained.
The Arab league voted 21-0 for the UN to enforce a No-Fly-Zone. The Security Council voted to aprove it, and with so much Arab support, Russia and China obstained.
*abstained
How exactly did you pass a four year, essay based degree (that doesn't exist, but we'll let that slide) again?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 688
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)