War Games: Iran Style

Discussion in 'World Events' started by S.A.M., Dec 9, 2011.

  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    I'm not going to pretend the US is a perfect angel and doesn't have blood on its hands. And it may even be a sore loser as its power and influence decline (although how much has it really declined? Their recession in the 1930's was many times worse and yet it left them as the world's undisputed superpower a decade later). Decline or not, they just backed a major regime change in Libya and they might not even be finished, so don't count America out just yet, although greater humility on their part would be a wise change of course.

    What scares me is more about how Russia appears to be sore losers after losing a mere tiny fraction of their vast stolen empire, and that they seem to be looking for ways of hitting back at any cost (i.e. selling extremely dangerous weapons and technology to anyone who hates America). Europe really needs to get its s**t together and stop relying on Russian gas, because the Russians are the type to cut their own noses off just to spite the face/America.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    "Russia, shmusshya"

    They could all be chanting that in the middle of Red Square and it wouldn't scare me.

    Next villain, Captain. All the shields, give me warp Factor 9 &gage.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    The next villain is Israel, with its evil attempts to infect the world with HIV and usurp Iran's rightful imperial domains.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    No, they need to get out of our USi pulpits and Pentagon, Israel needs to drop apartheid back home, one secular non-sectarian state... or lose the aid.

    -a nice villain there BTW. They even have hot (but expensive) women, too. Shale gas. Hmmmm

    Let's all threaten to attack Israel immediately for WMD and civil rights violations. and for just being dicks.

    with chicks.

    Let's raise a brave new valkurian national motto (knocking the nazi edges off, of course):

    "Death to all Dicks with Chicks"

    sometimes translated worldwide as "whatever you do, don't be a dick to your chick(s)".

    many slang versions ensue in every dialect.

    I could live with that kind of global sharia. Truthfully personally I live with it each and every blessed day. That's why I'm filing for exclusive rights to the MySharia logo and concept.

    eventually we'll even deal with chicks with dicks (to each his own, say I) but only after consolidating democracies.

    Direct ones.

    "Let's all be nice and have direct democracies" will have to wait.

    "Kill all the Dicks with Chicks" might change the world sooner.

    So I propose we send all of our women to war.

    We would all be on our knees tomorrow.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Was there a central message we were supposed to take away from that?
  9. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Several, but merely that Israel is the greater villain/greater threat to US national security than is Iran would do.

    I admit that the contemplation of women is mostly off-topic. Moderators cannot assign themselves a yellow flag of running doggery using present software. But I apologize.

    Thank goddess at least we're not hostage to a small mideastern state inhabited entirely by women.

    A dark age it would be (admit it, you'd let them tell us what to do).
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  10. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well I'd certainly cringe at the thought of watching them go into battle and get shelled. And yeah, I'm also in favour of US cutting or ending its military support for Israel until the settlements are stopped, but don't see why that's on the top of Iran's menu of problems to fix (aside from the obvious propaganda benefits).
  11. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    So your answer is that you would let them tell us what to do.

    I see.
  12. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Who? A feminist dictatorship?
  13. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Let's not get personal. If I live in a matriarchial hell it's kinda (?) irrelevant; my problem. They secretly took over ages ago.

    How about them Iranians? What crazy belligerent thing have they said lately? Let's see: ...

    They say "see you at the Hague" (the insolent technical pygmies getting technical).

    JapsIranians Crying to the League of Nations UN


    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well I don't know where all this matriarchal stuff came from but I agree that's not a relevant issue here. The whole point in the first place is that not much has changed from the moments the drone first crashed until now, and not much is likely to change in the weeks and months to come either. I can't blame Iran for upping the hostile rhetoric given that hostile rhetoric going the other way has become the Republican party's election ticket. All the same, a nuclear Iran is as much a concern to the world as any other development, and we must make sure that their upping the ante will not work to their overall benefit at the expense of anyone else's security.
  15. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    These are the historic legacies and products of rampant politico-ideology. Seen from hindsight they paint a truly ugly picture. I know the gulags well. I believe Russia is a more or less reformed nation today. At the least, they voice a calm measured tone on the table of international diplomacy.
    Of course yes.
    Not sure what you are referring to in the first piece? As to the second, if the US can`t roll back a bunch of Afghan fighters, why do you think they stand any kind of chance against a first world, high tech nation with regional security set ups with the biggest US financial prop?
    Nobody knows how that may have ended - and of course again, at immense expense of life.
    Not according to what I know. Their nukes are healthy and plentiful and now given the missile defense systems on their borders, expanding. The nations should have dumped and banned ALL nukes after WW2.
    Its utterly unrealistic to assume Russia is going to start a war, I am not sure on what evidence you are basing this notion?
    No, I believe they are simply trying to defend their neighborhood against a sustained USNATO circle of control and influence.
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    MAybe it will stop its proxy "wars" with Israel when Israel quits attacking it
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    I sure hope so, because right now it looks like they're simply offering cooperation and assistance to anyone who seeks to threaten or weaken the United States, with no regard to what actually motivates those receiving the assistance.

    I'm referring to a hypothetical future scenario where Russia uses its troops to either annex a sovereign country's land or to attack an American ally without provocation, or it equips a nation like Iran or Syria with deadly weapons which are then used with Russia's approval to spark a regional clash.

    Do you think America is using even a tiny fraction of its firepower to roll those Afghan fighters back? Is it employing scorched-earth tactics or removing the civilians who make the Taliban's guerrilla war a possibility in the first place? You do understand that the war would be over much sooner if Afghanistan still posed a serious threat to thousands of American civilians as it did after 9/11, right? I grant you the American economy has spent countless hundreds of billions fighting these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but you do understand there are far cheaper and deadlier ways to get the job done if need be, right?

    If Russia pushes for a large-scale war involving Russian troops engaging America and its allies head on, at that point they'll be committed to a fight whether we confiscate their territories or not, so we might as well make sure they never have a chance to repeat the effort. Not a pleasant thought, especially with the European dependence on Russian gas supplies, but at the same time the US is drawing down its forces in the region, it looks like Putin's mafia is seeking a confrontation and is shoring up allies such as Iran and North Korea in preparation, so we'd best be ready to make sure it's the last adventure they ever attempt.

    We do know that countless millions died as a result of Soviet adventurism. If Patton had his way and the US had forced Russia out of central Europe, we don't know what would have happened but I can't see how it would have been any worse, certainly it would have been better for the countries whose independence was abruptly usurped.

    There are numerous reports out there claiming the Russian arsenal is large on paper but that most of its assets aren't in a functional state ready to be used on short notice. Poor maintenance, poor functional track record even at the peak of Soviet power; I'm not sure they even know how many of their warheads would launch, target and function properly in an actual war scenario, which is why they're so scared of US missile defenses in the first place. My advice is if they fear US missile defenses, they should stop selling nuclear and missile technology to the countries those defenses are intended to face.

    They're utterly unpredictable; all I can say is there's a clear pattern of Russian military cooperation with dictatorships hostile to the US and its allies (Israel in particular), serious allegations of Russian military and intelligence assistance to Hezbollah in 2006, efforts to shore up the regime in Syria and prevent American involvement while cities of protesters are shelled to dust. What exactly are they doing to calm fears that they seek to undermine us out of spite for losing the Cold War? At best it seems they only care about profits and will even deal with the Devil if there's money to be made. I do hope you're right about them, but I think we should be prepared in case they have other plans (many analysts seem convinced this is indeed the case).

    Honestly, what business is it of theirs if non-hostile neighbouring countries choose to ally themselves with an organization which will protect them from Russian bullying? If Ukraine or Estonia want to join NATO, why should anyone else have a say in that? Did I miss something? Is Ukraine threatening an invasion with massive columns of NATO troops already in position to strike?
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Cpt. Bork "you do understand there are far cheaper and deadlier ways to get the job done if need be, right?"

    If I may ask about what you're suggesting here:

    What is "the job"?

    Is it a job needing doing in Iran, in your estimation?

    Do you believe that more force of warfare in Afghanistan (total nuclear innihilation warfare for example) in retaliation for 9-11 would have been of greater benefit to the interests of the USA (or anyone)? If my example is extreme, then exactly how would you describe the necessary surge escalation of destructive force required? What sort of attacks would you have justified against other countries involved in the recruitment and training of the 9-11 hijackers?

    Do you really believe most Cold War rhetoric applicable to our times?

    Edit: deleted this yesterday but apparently not soon enough here it is dammit. :/
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Well I don't mean to sound like a Rick Perry on this topic, I just tend deal with a lot of extreme hypotheticals, worst-case scenario type situations as they come up. What I am suggesting with regards to Afghanistan is merely that the US is more than capable of stepping up its military performance in proportion to whatever threats might confront it. Since Afghanistan doesn't pose any sort of existential threat to the US, there's no justification for using that level of force, but I'm suggesting that if the Taliban suddenly became 10X as powerful overnight, they can still be dealt with very effectively provided there's a political and industrial will to do so amongst the NATO allies. I think it's pretty premature to assume that the difficulties with occupying a hostile nation are the same as the difficulties with defeating an opposing army/nation in total war and eliminating their very capacity to fight.

    As for Iran, I've been pretty clear that I'm opposed to military action against them, even if they detonate a test nuclear device. Fundamentally if it's ok for the United States and its allies to have nuclear weapons, I can't justify morally holding Iranians to a separate, inferior standard. The only exception I can think of justifying military action is if James Bond himself reports that an Iranian nuclear attack is imminent. What I do advocate is that we match their moves when they conduct aggressive military buildups, and that the western nations apply what sanctions they can to the relevant countries so as to create a serious incentive for Iran to change its current path. As I've also said several times before, those sanctions should be accompanied by an even more generous offer for economic assistance if Iran chooses to cooperate instead. I find Republican recent chirping on the issue to be most unhelpful at the moment, so I do admit it's hard to take a stance and choose sides here.

    Actually I think what we've done there to date has worked out pretty well as is. If we had a non-corrupt, non-despotic domestic partner to work with there, we'd have finished the job years ago. I don't hear stories of Canadian soldiers coming back and declaring it to be a hellish nightmare on par with the trench warfare of WWI, and I doubt it's very different for other NATO troops either. Destroying the Taliban isn't even the end goal, it's to end their monopoly on the political system and their ability to use force of arms to coerce it. Last I heard, the plan for years has been that they'd be submitting candidates for election once the violence has come to a halt, just like any other party or interest group.
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Russia is recalcitrant and chauvinistic, no doubt, but the fact of the matter is that they're in long-term secular decline. Their demographics are fucked, their economy is not diversified, they have zero soft power, etc.

    The center of gravity in natural gas production has already shifted to the Americas and LNG shipping. And EU imports of Russian gas have actually been in steady decline since the early 1990's (!), now down to less than 25% of the consumption.
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Maybe, or maybe they will stop when their regime has been obliterated.
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Like their invasion of Georgia, or their sabre-rattling about nuclear missiles, or their staunch support for and arms sales to murderous dictators, or the assertion of a "sphere of privilege" encompassing various sovereign states that border them. Hey, as long as they do so in a calm voice, it's cool right?

    The US defeated the Taliban and took over the country in a matter of weeks, and have held the country for a decade since. The main impediment to "rolling back" said fighters seems to be that such would involve invading Pakistan.

    Also, the USA is way better at fighting massed warfare against conventional armies, due to historical experience, than it is at counterinsurgency. So there's no particular implication that difficulties in Afghanistan imply even greater difficulties against a conventional adversary. Probably the opposite, actually.

    Russia is not a first-world nation by any definition I've ever seen. Back when that term actually had a concrete, clear definition, it explicitly excluded Russia. The USSR was the central, prototypical second world nation. Now that it means "countries with very high human development index," it still excludes Russia.

    You're referring to the SCO? That's always been something of a shell institution, and one aimed more at keeping a lid on the mouldering post-Soviet states of Central Asia, then a "regional security set-up." It is not a military alliance, and it is hard to see China going to war with the USA to defend Russia (supposing the fighting isn't on China's doorstep and doesn't threaten their own interests, of course - didn't the Domino Theory get discredited back in the 1970's?). What wars have the SCO members ever fought together? What interests do they particularly share, beyond order in central Asia? Lately the whole thing has been looking like little more than a forum for Russia and China to advertize their (divergent) geopolitical orientations. The SCO is a paper tiger as a geopolitical force.

    It's interesting that you embrace the premise that states near Russia are in "their" neighborhood and that no other geopolitical "influence" can be permitted there. You are openly endorsing Russian conceptions of regional political hegemony, at the expense of the sovereignty of its neighbors.

    Why is a Russian circule of control and influence regarded as legitimate, and a USNATO circle of control and influence regarded as illegitimate? Again, this seems to be nothing more than an endorsement of Russian imperialism, devoid of any principled justification. Either those nations are sovereign and any infringement on that is illegitimate, or they aren't and it's a simple contest of brute power.

    We should also note that the willingness of various of Russia's neighbors to jump into bed with NATO (or the USA) stems exactly from their long, brutal histories of domination by Russia, and the consequent desire for a superpower sponsor to hedge against a renewal of Russian domination and control.
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Even if Iran freely signed and ratified a treaty that explicitly establishes exactly such a double-standard, and which is the basis both for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and Iran's assertion of its right to nuclear energy?

    Do you really contend that the NPT is morally unacceptable and should be done away with? Because your statement there seems pretty unequivocable.

    Maybe it's more important to limit nuclear proliferation, than to erase any double-standard right now?

Share This Page