Count down to Iran invasion

[P4man]

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.

[cbeast]

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base American Palace in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.

FTFY

[SgtSpike]

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too.  The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason  - to take control of the commodity.

I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

[Flip Tulipcoin]

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S. The Iraqis get their show of autonomy and the U.S. gets itself out of the single biggest and most expensive foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam. We should send them a thank you note with a nice gift, maybe one of these:

http://wonkette.com/458166/foreigners-delight-in-sarah-palin-pooping-on-nativity-set

[PatrickHarnett]

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too.  The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason  - to take control of the commodity.

I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

lol - it depends on how cynical you are.  But, how much control do you think the locals had when they had been "saved" and then over-run.  In the last 20 years a lot of profits in the USA were as a result of rebuilding the infrastructure they blew up.  As for annexing another country, the approach that the locals are foreigners to the troops and contractors helps explain the relative value of life.  Bush ran an imperial dynasty, the Romans would have been proud (in their day, they attacked Carthage and North Africa for the corn).

[P4man]

I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

Pretty obvious isnt it? Short version: you remove a regime that doesnt take orders from  Washington (aka rogue states)  and replace it with a puppet regime (aka spreading democracy).  What else do you think separates the theocracy in Iran from the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and why one is considered a close ally and the other an evil empire. The other purpose is to keep military bases in the region to keep those regimes in check. And you send a rather clear message to the other countries.
Long version:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[P4man]

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S.

Dont confuse the propaganda with the reality. The US has been lobbying very hard and until very recently to get immunity for its military. After all thats happened since the "end" of the war, that was a bridge too far even for the Iraqi's, so they declined.  Thats the only reason US military is withdrawing, that it couldnt get a SOFA agreement that provided its soldiers with immunity.  Its not because the US wanted to, although of course thats how its presented.

Plan B is the Baghdad "embassy" with 5.000+ US soldiers and mercenaries pretending to be diplomatic security (and thereby being granted immunity).

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S.

Dont confuse the propaganda with the reality. The US has been lobbying very hard and until very recently to get immunity for its military. After all thats happened since the "end" of the war, that was a bridge too far even for the Iraqi's, so they declined.  Thats the only reason US military is withdrawing, that it couldnt get a SOFA agreement that provided its soldiers with immunity.  Its not because the US wanted to, although of course thats how its presented.

Plan B is the Baghdad "embassy" with 5.000+ US soldiers and mercenaries pretending to be diplomatic security (and thereby being granted immunity).

I don't recall being propagandized on this point. I lived and served through the collective political retardation of Vietnam in the U.S., at that time undoing a mistake was something that no one could face because of the reality of the grotesque errors in judgment it acknowledged.

One of course would have clerks working furiously to insure our continued presence in Iraq right up until the point they failed. Otherwise the likes of such folks as the Project For A New American Century pinheads would throw a public fit, which they did anyway, but had no one to blame except those bad Iraqis who actually wanted to be able to enforce their own law as they see fit. How dare them 

As for Plan B, it is a way to leave the door open for a return to imposing our imperial destiny on Iraq by leaving the U.S. with "assets" to protect there, and it throws a bone to the interventionists in the U.S. Consequently, we will need to be vigilant going forward, there are too many crazies who would have the U.S. back in the Iraq quagmire. We should find a general named Custer to put in charge, don't you think?

So, no one had to tell me anything about this, it was evidently from the start that it was a crafty political solution to undoing a hideous mistake. As I said before, a win-win for the Iraqis and for the U.S. that effectively neutralized the ill-tempered assholes who dragged us into the war on false premises.

[TECSHARE]

looks like this prediction failed bigtime...

The funny thing is that OP is still convinced we are all idiots not to have believed his ravings.

Yes... I suppose those explosions at their missile and nuclear facilities were just industrial accidents. Love the childlike personal attacks, classy and quite convincing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/satellite-images-suggest-blast-obliterated-iran-military-base.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility-has-exploded-as-diplomatic-tensions-rise-between-the-west-and-tehran/story-e6frg6so-1226209996774

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/world/middleeast/iran-blast-kills-revolutionary-guards-commander-at-base.html?_r=1

(note: the first explosion happened just over a month after my OP)

[netrin]

Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.

Yeah, the U.S. concurrently arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s was indeed classic, but I'm not sure it did anyone much good long term. Dammit, they quit fighting before they had completely destroyed themselves, what's the fun in that?

On the other hand, getting the Iranians and the Israelis to smoke each other for good is an idea with legs.

[netrin]

Iraq plus Khuzestan Province and Kuwait would have been a major economic and military power under the strong, semi-secular and stable Ba'ath party.

[mila]

I'll bet 4 against 1 BTC that neither the USA nor Israel executes an overt Air Strike against Iran during 2011 or 2012.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=750356

I'd buy a share just to loose money. how do we pull this off?
My bitcoin vs 4 of yours?

[netrin]

I'm willing to accept, considering I did post the challenge publicly, but I wonder if you wouldn't rather take a bet that 'expires' earlier. My attention span won't likely last a year.

[molecular]

Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.

Yeah, the U.S. concurrently arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s was indeed classic, but I'm not sure it did anyone much good long term. Dammit, they quit fighting before they had completely destroyed themselves, what's the fun in that?

On the other hand, getting the Iranians and the Israelis to smoke each other for good is an idea with legs.

People aint stupid. Shit like that backfires in the long run. US foreign policy is outdated imperalist bullcrap. Listen to Ron Paul and vote for him if you're US citizen.

[netrin]

Ya know, vote buying was shutdown on Ebay some years ago. It might be more difficult with bitcoin. Just say'n.

[Flip Tulipcoin]

Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.

Yeah, the U.S. concurrently arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s was indeed classic, but I'm not sure it did anyone much good long term. Dammit, they quit fighting before they had completely destroyed themselves, what's the fun in that?

On the other hand, getting the Iranians and the Israelis to smoke each other for good is an idea with legs.

People aint stupid. Shit like that backfires in the long run. US foreign policy is outdated imperalist bullcrap. Listen to Ron Paul and vote for him if you're US citizen.

Thanks, no. Paul would bring far too many anachronistic crazy people with him as baggage. A larger scale version of what happened when the U.S. House of Representatives got stuffed with Tea Party retards last election is not needed.

Hey, I know, let's see if Paul and Ralph Nader would consider a 3rd party run together. Nader's still alive, at least as much as Paul, isn't he?

BTW, the American electorate is really fucking stupid, superstitious, and has an attention span roughly equal to the length of a beer commercial, even worse than only 30 or 40 years ago. The 1980s were a watershed time for the "Let's Get Stupid" movement, now we are stuck with them until they die, hopefully sooner than they expect 

[mila]

I'm willing to accept, considering I did post the challenge publicly, but I wonder if you wouldn't rather take a bet that 'expires' earlier. My attention span won't likely last a year.

same problem here. I just liked the time span that it gives an illusion of long term peace. (no new war in next 12 months)

I just donated 3.5 to an educational website (lost profit from a bet) and hope Iran is safe from US invasion

[ineededausername]

A few months ago, I posted a "lol that could never happen" post in this thread.  I now believe that I was wrong.  "News" outlets like MSNBC/Fox are hyping up the "threat of Iran" incessantly these days, and after the recent statement by Panetta, I'm a bit concerned.

[TECSHARE]

US missiles 'hit Iranian village' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173099/US-missiles-hit-Iranian-village.html