Obama Preparing for War With Iran

[DirtyJosé]

Wow, this guy is a total prick. Typical trolls tactics. Hope you're finding your way around The Prison ok. You're gonna be here a long time, champ.

 

[Canadian Ninja]

Canadian Ninja:

Do you not remember telling me to get more accurate points? Well, every last one of them turned out accurate, except the mis-statement on Mahoud's "election". I knew what I was saying was accurate and it is NOT my fault that people come in here to troll. They don't have a care in the world about the most serious problems facing the world and they have NO clue what the facts are, other than what they were told, or heard, with NO real context or opinion forming of their own.

If this is your passion, then you would know what the hell your talking about, or it would NOT be your passion. This is my passion. And I expected people to read it with interest (if they enjoy geo-political discussions), and maybe come away with a better understanding.

Everybody has a passion and most of the time it can NOT be taught. You either excell, or you dont. I DO NOT EXCELL AT SPELLING.

And for people questioning my degree... If you want to act like Donald trump... watch out.

Without proof, there was nothing but your word to go on with their accuracy. And seeing as we all view you as a moron, you need all the proof you can get to back up your claims. That's half your problem. You shoot off at the mouth, claiming everything is accurate, without showing the proof. We don't trust your degree because of the way you act, your lack of proper knowledge of ways to prove your case and information. Here are a few helpful hints to make it easier for you to be taken seriously:

1. When citing statistics, show the proof from a trusted third party. (Fox News should not be one, as they are horribly biased)

2. Don't get bent out of shape when someone disagrees or asks for proof. They are having a discussion/debate. If you want someone to constantly agree with everything you say, go find a lackey..

3. This is a big one. Don't with hold information as an "ace" as then you look like an idiot.

4. Don't keep going "I win", "Victory Lap" or any other sort of statements. It shows you're a bigger idiot every time you do it.

I like having geo-political discussions, as they are interesting and I learn stuff. But I like having them with someone who won't act like a child and will show proof either during their point, or when asked. So please, take this advice seriously, as it'll make you look less like a moron.

 

[ryan86]

1. When citing statistics, show the proof from a trusted third party. (Fox News should not be one, as they are horribly biased)

2. Don't get bent out of shape when someone disagrees or asks for proof. They are having a discussion/debate. If you want someone to constantly agree with everything you say, go find a lackey..

3. This is a big one. Don't with hold information as an "ace" as then you look like an idiot.

How can I take your points seriously when half of what your asking doesn't apply?

I never cited Fox News and NEVER would. Again, you guys totaly mis-characterise what I say, so when new people come into the discussion, they get faulty talking points from you. All I hear is the same "your a moron" and "you can't spell", from every poster who joins in. There is no debate. There can't be. I was right on substance. You guys got proved wrong. So if i am a moron for not spelling right, what does that make you for losing the real argument? Debate on the merrits!

 

[Canadian Ninja]

How can I take your points seriously when half of what your asking doesn't apply?

I never cited Fox News and NEVER would. Again, you guys totaly mis-characterise what I say, so when new people come into the discussion, they get faulty talking points from you. All I hear is the same "your a moron" and "you can't spell", from every poster who joins in. There is no debate. There can't be. I was right on substance. You guys got proved wrong. So if i am a moron for not spelling right, what does that make you for losing the real argument? Debate on the merrits!

You didn't win on substance, because all that was there were your statements with no proof to back them. You put proof afterwards after being told to show it. And after you did, you started acting like a child. There is no debate, because whenever anybody put counter points with supported proof, you'd whine and say you won.

I used Fox News mainly because I saw you make a comment about them earlier, and wanted to make sure you wouldn't use them.

And they don't apply? Let's take a look shall we, because I wrote them specifically out of what I saw from you.

1. Cite sources; Typical High School level essay writing point. Seems to apply to this situation.

2. Don't get upset when someone doesn't agree; Pretty much every single thread you've done, where you point out "facts" and someone counter-points you, you get upset. Again, seems to apply to you.

3. See point one about citing sources.

4. Don't keep going "I win"; seems pretty logical. You look like a child who won a race that no one was competeing in when you do that, and is not a way someone who claims to be a University Graduate would act when they have proven their point.

 

[ryan86]

You didn't win on substance, because all that was there were your statements with no proof to back them.

I used Fox News mainly because I saw you make a comment about them earlier, and wanted to make sure you wouldn't use them.

And they don't apply? Let's take a look shall we, because I wrote them specifically out of what I saw from you.

1. Cite sources; Typical High School level essay writing point. Seems to apply to this situation.

Really? Cite souces on a Wrestling forum? Really? Are you grading this? And if you knew what you were talking about, you would not have needed souces, you would have known the information was correct. The fact that you needed sources shows you didn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Your problem is with style, NOT substance. The only thing I mis-stated was Mahmoud's election being in 03, when it was '05. Tell me, exactly what did I get wrong? There is 9 or 10 post to chose from. I provided proof that every counter-point was wrong.

 

[Барбоса]

Your problem is with style, NOT substance.

You have a clear problem with style and substance.

I went back and read your posts again and I have to say that there is very little actual analysis involved in any of them. You simply rhyme off a series of suggestions as to how an attack against Iran might go and once others took exception to your frankly absurd suggestion that basically the entire Middle East apart from Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah would side with the Americans, you began to complain.

Then you bring out your "ace in the hole" of correspondence from Middle Eastern rulers begging the US to remove the Islamic leadership from Iran when in fact all they prove is that Islamic countries all hate each other. They in no way prove that Jordan, Bahrain, the Saudis or whomever else you would like to name would actually support a US invasion of Iran should it happen. They might be happy that the Ayatollah was removed but they would hedge their bets and at best sit on the fence before the end game was played out, all the while large groups of their citizens burned American flags and cried "Jihad" against American imperialism.

 

[ryan86]

I just want everybody to answer this question:

With the exception of the ONE mis-statement on Mahmoud's "Election",

-Was the analysis historically accurate?

-Was the breakdown of the Muslim world correct?

-Were the list of councils, and who belonged to them, correct?

-Did the Arab contries I named as supportive allies, turn out to be accurate when regarding Iran?

-Was the analysis of a hypothetical military "First Strike", in the way it would be executed, logical?

Was the "Iranian Responce" that I layed out a logical and accurate depiction?

Was my analysis of why the Iranians want a nuclear weapon logical?

Answer the questions above, and if you disagree, give me counter-points to the arguments I layed out.

 

[X]

Part 1

First off, This gets speculated atleast twice a year since George Bush declared Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil", in his 2003 "State of the Union" adress. And under the Obama Admin, Iran has steped up It's agressive behavior and defiance of the world community. Rather it be further misleading I.A.E.A. inspectors, continuing against the NNPT, or defying more rounds of U.N. sanctions.

In this thread I will be looking at all dementions of Iranian behavior, the cost of war (political, economic, and casualties), our strategic allies, what a military first strike might look like and it's fall-out (consequences, unintended or forseen), the Iranian responce, and what the Obama Admin might be looking at.

Continuation to Part 2...

Most people will probably not be reading beyond this opening thread because it's hard to listen to politics from someone who misspells every other word. Spellcheck is your friend.

 

[ryan86]

Most people will probably not be reading beyond this opening thread because it's hard to listen to politics from someone who misspells every other word. Spellcheck is your friend.

Poor attempt at providing cover for the fact that you have nothing on substance to argue. I'm a bad speller...You won. How-ever, it doesnt make the analysis wrong.

Another man down.

 

[X]

Wouldn't I have had to have disputed something you said to have been shot down? I'm simply telling you that nobody is going to give a shit what you've got to say because you type like a fifteen year old troll.

 

[Canadian Ninja]

Really? Cite souces on a Wrestling forum? Really? Are you grading this? And if you knew what you were talking about, you would not have needed souces, you would have known the information was correct. The fact that you needed sources shows you didn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Your problem is with style, NOT substance. The only thing I mis-stated was Mahmoud's election being in 03, when it was '05. Tell me, exactly what did I get wrong? There is 9 or 10 post to chose from. I provided proof that every counter-point was wrong.

If it was wrestling related, then no it wouldn't matter. Seeing as this is not a wrestling related thread, and you're posting about real world issues, then yes it's best to put sources. If you hadn't noticed, before you gave your sources, people were pointing out how stupid this was, after it's been the way you act and your spelling. Do you get the idea yet? When you give stuff to back up your claims, you don't get the "your a moron" and actually get some respect. I showed you proof to my claims, and after you did the same and now I respect at the very least your opinion on the Arab League's vote for the No-Fly Zone. But you are misguided, not wrong, but misguided on the idea that the Middle Eastern governments continuing support if the US would go after Iran. Many in Egypt's revolution wanted Mubarak gone for the fact he was an American Sympathyzer, as is the sentiment in a lot of Middle Eastern countries. I have friends and family who are Muslim, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not grading it, but to be taken seriously on geo-political statements, with conspiracy theories running rampant about every little thing that happens, it's good to have solid known facts to look at to support the information, any University Graduate, heck even high school graduate, would know when taking information from another source to cite it. Look at (if you ever get out of here) threads that talk about wrestling news from other websites, they always have the link and website name in the quote so we can see it ourselves. It's responsible, and prevents the person from looking like they're talking out of their ass.

 

[Harthan]

This is among the worst threads I have had the misfortune to skim over.

 

[ryan86]

If it was wrestling related, then no it wouldn't matter. When you give stuff to back up your claims, you don't get the "your a moron" and actually get some respect. I showed you proof to my claims, and after you did the same and now I respect at the very least your opinion on the Arab League's vote for the No-Fly Zone. But you are misguided, not wrong, but misguided

I gave more than that one link backing up my "Arab League" claims of support. Which supported us 21-0. I also gave you real information on what the Arab nations are doing behind the scences to press us into war with Iran. And these Arab leaders know a lot more about what they are trying to accomplish than your friends.

I callenge you to read the entire article backing up my analysis. Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran

Then I want to hear you answer the questions I asked and tell me exactly what it is that I said that was inaccurate. I like you Ninja; a fun debate

 

[Canadian Ninja]

I gave more than that one link backing up my "Arab League" claims of support. Which supported us 21-0. I also gave you real information on what the Arab nations are doing behind the scences to press us into war with Iran. And these Arab leaders know a lot more about what they are trying to accomplish than your friends.

I callenge you to read the entire article backing up my analysis. Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran

Then I want to hear you answer the questions I asked and tell me exactly what it is that I said that was inaccurate. I like you Ninja; a fun debate

I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. I'm just picky that way. The government maybe urging for their own benefit, but the populace has issues with the United States, something you can't ignore and is clear and evident is their blatant anger towards America. Do they all call for Jihad? Only the extremists do that, as many Muslims and Islamic scholars point out that the words "holy" and "war" (a rough, western translation of the word Jihad) do not appear together in the Qu'ran. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place. As I pointed out, look at Mubarak from Egypt to see what happens when a Middle Eastern leader is too much of an American sympathizer. I've talked with my Muslim friends during the Arab Spring, and the one thing they kept saying was that the people wanted less American influence in the region.

If you want to carry on with this debate, I'd be more then happy to in PM's so our responses don't get buried. You've got good points, and I am enjoying this discussion (I don't think of it much as a debate to be honest), so feel free to reply by PM.

 

[BK Styles]

Proof read ryan, for fucks sake...

 

[ryan86]

I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.

My PM privlages have been stripped for being in prison. So I guess I'll make my last points, then give you the last word.

A nuclear Iran means a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
The Arab and persion worlds are filled with historical tension and mis-trust. Add to that the fact that Arab nations are mainly Sunni, while Persion nations are mainly Shi'ite. Sunni's and Shia's are mortal enemies and have even participated in "Ethnic Cleansing " against eachother and have faught many wars based purley on these differences.

Note: Saudi Arabia would be Iran's first retaliatary strike. Mainly it's oil fields.

 

[ryan86]

I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.

My PM privlages have been stripped for being in prison. So I guess I'll make my last points, then give you the last word.

A nuclear Iran means a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
The Arab and persion worlds are filled with historical tension and mis-trust. Add to that the fact that Arab nations are mainly Sunni, while Persion nations are mainly Shi'ite. Sunni's and Shia's are mortal enemies and have even participated in "Ethnic Cleansing " against eachother and have faught many wars based purley on these differences.

Note: Saudi Arabia would be Iran's first retaliatary strike.

 

[Canadian Ninja]

I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.

My PM privlages have been stripped for being in prison. So I guess I'll make my last points, then give you the last word.

A nuclear Iran means a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
The Arab and persion worlds are filled with historical tension and mis-trust. Add to that the fact that Arab nations are mainly Sunni, while Persion nations are mainly Shi'ite. Sunni's and Shia's are mortal enemies and have even participated in "Ethnic Cleansing " against eachother and have faught many wars based purley on these differences.

Note: Saudi Arabia would be Iran's first retaliatary strike. Mainly it's oil fields.

If you can, link me to the Arab/Persian thing. I think the Sunni and Shi'ite's are kind of like the Catholic's and Protestant's of the Islamic beliefs. Believe in the same thing, just do it differently. I'm sure there have been wars, heck there have been struggles among different religious beliefs every which way. No doubt some Ethnic Cleansing attempts, as neither side of actually succeeded against one another, but I put that up to the more extremists trying to do it rather then it's the Muslim community as a whole wanting to rid themselves of the other.

As for Iran's strike, if it's before a US attack (which would be stupid on every front regardless of the President, in both logistics, morale of the troops as well as the country as a whole getting pissed off for more un-needed bloodshed) I'd throw it more towards US bases first and Israel being second , with Saudi Arabia being a very close third on Iran's hit list. (Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terr...ssile-as-Strait-of-Hormuz-posturing-continues). Now, there is speculation at a joint US/Israel covert war on Iran, which if it is true, would be very damning for President Obama in my opinion as with the way morale and logistics have been for the Afghan and Iraq War very strained, another large scale war, like the one with Iran would be, could throw the US and possibly the world into an even worse recession.

 

[DirtyJosé]

This is what happens when idiots have too much time on the internet. Quick, someone tell me how many times he's linked to the same article in this thread and did it expecting everyone to suddenly agree with him each time. Poor sad obstinate fuck.

 

[ryan86]

If you can, link me to the Arab/Persian thing.

As for Iran's strike, if it's before a US attack I'd throw it more towards US bases first and Israel being second , with Saudi Arabia being a very close third on Iran's hit list

That was a very well writen post and I admire peole like you who can make attempts at learning more about geo-political issues.

You do not have to provide me with links, LOL, on this subject I will automoaticly know if it's accurate. But feel free to correct me but I think the U.S. jst finished pulling out all major bases in SA. And I'm pretty sure if Iran had their head on straight they would attack the Oil feilds which are much more strategic and vital to SA. An economic hit like that would do 1,000 times greater dammage than having their 1980's style soviet scuds, shot down. And here is the Arab/Persian link: ( I will provide a Sunni/Shi'ite link in my next post)
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html

 

[Canadian Ninja]

That was a very well writen post and I admire peole like you who can make attempts at learning more about geo-political issues.

You do not have to provide me with links, LOL, on this subject I will automoaticly know if it's accurate. But feel free to correct me but I think the U.S. jst finished pulling out all major bases in SA. And I'm pretty sure if Iran had their head on straight they would attack the Oil feilds which are much more strategic and vital to SA. An economic hit like that would do 1,000 times greater dammage than having their 1980's style soviet scuds, shot down. And here is the Arab/Persian link: ( I will provide a Sunni/Shi'ite link in my next post)
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html

They could do more damage actually by shutting off that straight they were working out of (I forget it's name). They cut off 20% of oil from the West, and take a lot of money out of Saudi Arabia's pocket without firing a missle. Continue the blockade, and a lot of problems will arise for Western Countries. If Iran just attacks Saudi Arabia, then it would be between them and possibly the UN (who won't authorize the mobilization of any army of it's members in any violent manner until provoked. Look at Sommalia, and Afghanistan which were UN sanctioned wars.) No United Nations member nation can go to war without authorization, so Saudi Arabia can ask for an attack all they want, but until provoked, the US nor any other UN nation can really do anything.

Also, you said "If Iran had their head on straight". I think that's a mighty big IF, as you have the Sunni/Shi'ite problem, but also the anti-Americanism known in Iran, and the long documented issue with Israel. You could almost make it a gamble on which will be first on their list. All of which could draw in the UN in some manner, two would cause the US to make a more serious war effort. But a war effort from the US would be a bad idea, as stated above with logistics and the morale of the troops. I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be good for the US to get into another overt conflict.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Jeezus fuck, guys. Learn to use the quote button correctly. This is so painful, but I can't stop checking on this thread.

 

[ryan86]

They could do more damage actually by shutting off that straight they were working out of (I forget it's name). They cut off 20% of oil from the West, and take a lot of money out of Saudi Arabia's pocket without firing a missle. Continue the blockade, and a lot of problems will arise for Western Countries. If Iran just attacks Saudi Arabia, then it would be between them and possibly the UN (who won't authorize the mobilization of any army of it's members in any violent manner until provoked.

I can garuntee you one thing; If Iran actually tried to put a Naval Blockade on the Straight of Hormuz, (which they can't militarily do it) The U.S. would waste NO time in sinking every last Iranian ship in the area. A Naval blockaid of international shipping lanes is an act of war and no U.N. S.C. resolution would be needed for the U.S. and Nato (who act independantly from the U.N) to destroy the Iranian Navy and the ENTIRE AL/GCC would support it. Sorry.

 

[Tequila Dave]

This made my day. I had a pretty shitty day.