Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

Well the story with Afghanistan was that the Taliban (a sort of Islamic movement to impose religious law and government) with Pakistan's managed to take over most of the country and maintain firm control after a big ol' civil war. The Taliban did a whole lot of unpleasant stuff, there were massacres, and a bunch Sharia law stuff, but the thing America really cared about was that they let Al Qaeda openly use the place as a base of operations and even helped fund them. The war was started to stop Afghanistan supporting Al Qaeda, because Al Qaeda had attacked the US by hijacking some planes, you may have heard of that part. So the US supported the other two factions that had fought against the Taliban and took control of the populated southern areas. Then it got into a protracted guerilla fight with the Taliban forces who could in no way fight them openly. They've been mainly hiding in mountain strongholds, and among sympathetic civilian populations, and over the border with Pakistan and some other areas, and it's just been dragging on like that.

There's a heck of a lot more to it than that, but that's the basic gist of it. If the main objective was to stop Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations, then I guess it's been somewhat successful.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If the main objective was to stop al-Qaeda from doing anything it was successful. They barely even exist anymore. The organization has been reduced to a persistent idea followed by some offshoots like Ansar al-Sharia at best.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, even if it stays non-nuclear, another Iran-Israel war would be a Bad Thing. Even with the US pimping out the Israeli military. Because there is plenty of not-Iran-or-Israel area in between them, and how do you think the nations in the middle would react to either nation launching an invasion force through there? How about fighting a war there? I can't imagine it would end well.

It would also be weird. Syria is in a civil war, so they wouldn't officially enter the conflict. Turkey likes the US but dislikes Israel, so it would either be on Israel's side or neutral. Jordan and Israel have issues to say the least, so Jordan would probably be on Iran's side. Egypt is a wild card, popular consensus there is really against Israel but breaking the peace treaty would lead to an immediate loss of US aid. Israel, Iran, and Neutrality are all possible. Tunisia is too far removed and would probably remain neutral. Libya now has pro-US sentiment and doesn't directly conflict with Israel, so it could end up with Israel or neutral. Iraq has waning US influence but also anti-Iranian sentiment and could well end up on Israel's side.

But here's the weird one. Saudi Arabia. No official channels with Israel. Doesn't care for Iran because it is the world's largest population of Shias, and while the Wahhabists don't care much for Jews or anyone who isn't a Wahabbi Sunni they can't stand Shias. Thus would begin the most surreal alliance in history as Israel and Saudi Arabia team up to take down Iran.

Iran is actually making all the right moves for itself. Getting nukes is one of the best things it can do for itself.

Getting nuked by Israel isn't a good thing for your country.

We however, even though we ABSOLUTELY do not want Iran to get those nukes, won't do a single thing except look at them really angry.

Except for planting car bombs on their nuclear scientists and implanting state of the art virii into their nuclear plants. Don't you remember all that stuff?

Historically speaking the most likely eventuality is that Iran getting nukes will actually stop the Iran-Israel wars.

Yes, because everyone will be dead.

Terrorising and doing pointless assasinations to "scare" them out of completing their nuclear program is essentially "looking at them angry". It isn't doing anything it is just pretending to do something.

As far as "Getting Nuked by Israel" is concerned.. It isn't going to happen and even then if Iran really fears a nuke from Israel then all the MORE reason to have a nuke yourself.

It is important to their country to gain geopolitical power and without a nuke you simply don't have any.

Also believe it or not... No... this won't come anywhere close to destroying the world. Since Iran doesn't want to be destroyed either and Israel doesn't want to be destroyed. Thus no nukes will be used and Iran will be happy and Israel will be happy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Iran's nuclear program has been greatly stalled by US/Israeli/Possibly Russian actions. That's not equivalent to nothing.

I don't think you recognize the level of tension here. Israel and Iran are practically in a state of low war already. It isn't at all comparable to other instances of MAD. The clerics who run Iran may well accept MAD because they'll see it as the will of Allah that they triumph. They aren't rational actors, nor are Israel's religious hardliners.

A regional nuclear conflict could easily go global, and even if it doesn't it will be a major blow to the entire world.

[zombie urist]

The US has the most powerful conventional military in the world.

I'm not even sure if I agree with this. 

Yeah, it's not really a matter of opinion.
Our defense spending is close to seven times that of China. We spend about the same on defense as defense spenders 2-15 combined. Granted, defense spending isn't a perfect measure of military capability, but it's probably the best we have.

USA's military spending is really wasteful. Also 'defense spending' does not really apply to 'conventional warfare'. Even so, I would argue that China and Russia have conventional military that are about as powerful.

[Neonivek]

Iran's nuclear program has been greatly stalled by US/Israeli/Possibly Russian actions. That's not equivalent to nothing.

It is... It means nothing absolutely nothing.

They don't want to make Iran stop so they are just going to stall.

I don't think you recognize the level of tension here

It is the middle east... I am pretty aware of how chaotic it is over there.

 

The clerics who run Iran may well accept MAD because they'll see it as the will of Allah that they triumph. They aren't rational actors, nor are Israel's religious hardliners

And yet THEY are still smarter then we are. If they are so bad stop them!

If someone has a gun you don't take the 6th bullet out of their chamber and go "Mission accomplished" you take away their gun... you take ALL their bullets and stop them from buying more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The clerics who run Iran may well accept MAD because they'll see it as the will of Allah that they triumph. They aren't rational actors, nor are Israel's religious hardliners

And yet THEY are still smarter then we are. If they are so bad stop them!

.....Are you drunk or something?

[Neonivek]

The clerics who run Iran may well accept MAD because they'll see it as the will of Allah that they triumph. They aren't rational actors, nor are Israel's religious hardliners

And yet THEY are still smarter then we are. If they are so bad stop them!

.....Are you drunk or something?

What did we magic away their nuclear program?

[zombie urist]

If we could we would...

[Neonivek]

If we could we would...

Whats stopping you? Forcefields? Political atmosphere?

Ohh wait I know... it is because Iran, unlike Iraq, actually has a military worth anything.

[Flying Dice]

The US has the most powerful conventional military in the world.

I'm not even sure if I agree with this. 

Yeah, it's not really a matter of opinion.
Our defense spending is close to seven times that of China. We spend about the same on defense as defense spenders 2-15 combined. Granted, defense spending isn't a perfect measure of military capability, but it's probably the best we have.

USA's military spending is really wasteful. Also 'defense spending' does not really apply to 'conventional warfare'. Even so, I would argue that China and Russia have conventional military that are about as powerful.

You do understand what "defense spending" and "conventional warfare" mean, correct? The only parts of the defense budget that aren't directed in some way at improving the conventional capabilities of the US would be those parts directed to maintaining (and gradually decommissioning much of) our existing nuclear arsenal.

Here. This might help a bit, though obviously it only covers non-redacted material.

The point raised earlier about air power also applies; aircraft are force multipliers and we have a decided advantage in that sector. We've also got a surface fleet capable of staging aircraft to virtually every point on the globe that land bases can't reach. In the event of a conventional war with a power with anything approaching a notable military, our primary hindrance would be sociopolitical backlash. Hence why we haven't taken out Iran.

That aside, as long as we pay attention to history and don't try to start a land war in Russia, we'll be fine. China's conventional equipment is by-and-large substantially out of date. If I recall correctly, projections of Chinese economic growth will plateau before surpassing the US, which in turn means that they will never be able to completely catch up, barring a major paradigm shift. Trying to play Keeping Up With The Yankees would likely end the same was as it did for the USSR.

[zombie urist]

If we could we would...

Whats stopping you? Forcefields? Political atmosphere?
Ohh wait I know... it is because Iran, unlike Iraq, actually has a military worth anything.

Ok. Whats your point?

The US has the most powerful conventional military in the world.

I'm not even sure if I agree with this. 

Yeah, it's not really a matter of opinion.
Our defense spending is close to seven times that of China. We spend about the same on defense as defense spenders 2-15 combined. Granted, defense spending isn't a perfect measure of military capability, but it's probably the best we have.

USA's military spending is really wasteful. Also 'defense spending' does not really apply to 'conventional warfare'. Even so, I would argue that China and Russia have conventional military that are about as powerful.

You do understand what "defense spending" and "conventional warfare" mean, correct? The only parts of the defense budget that aren't directed in some way at improving the conventional capabilities of the US would be those parts directed to maintaining (and gradually decommissioning much of) our existing nuclear arsenal.
Here. This might help a bit, though obviously it only covers non-redacted material.
The point raised earlier about air power also applies; aircraft are force multipliers and we have a decided advantage in that sector. We've also got a surface fleet capable of staging aircraft to virtually every point on the globe that land bases can't reach. In the event of a conventional war with a power with anything approaching a notable military, our primary hindrance would be sociopolitical backlash. Hence why we haven't taken out Iran.
That aside, as long as we pay attention to history and don't try to start a land war in Russia, we'll be fine. China's conventional equipment is by-and-large substantially out of date. If I recall correctly, projections of Chinese economic growth will plateau before surpassing the US, which in turn means that they will never be able to completely catch up, barring a major paradigm shift. Trying to play Keeping Up With The Yankees would likely end the same was as it did for the USSR.

Meh.

[Pnx]

If we could we would...

Whats stopping you? Forcefields? Political atmosphere?

Ohh wait I know... it is because Iran, unlike Iraq, actually has a military worth anything.

You seem to be new to this.

There are actually some arguments to be made with some of the stuff you've been saying, but if you want people to at all take you seriously you're going to have to say it in a mature, rational (and preferably well thought out) manner.

[Neonivek]

I am not really trying to make a point except to express why I feel that reactions to Iran are essentially unhelpful to the current situation and how even listening to people aggrivates me.

Though I guess I COULD argue why it is in Iran's own personal best interest to have nukes and why we shouldn't expect them to just stop.

Ok. Whats your point?

Nothing you got my point. The reason we don't do anything that COULD stop the Nuclear Program 100% is because that would require us to actually go through a terrible war to do so.

[Pnx]

I am not really trying to make a point except to express why I feel that reactions to Iran are essentially unhelpful to the current situation and how even listening to people aggrivates me.

Though I guess I COULD argue why it is in Iran's own personal best interest to have nukes and why we shouldn't expect them to just stop.

Ok. Whats your point?

Nothing you got my point. The reason we don't do anything that COULD stop the Nuclear Program 100% is because that would require us to actually go through a terrible war to do so.

Pretty much yeah, I get that it might be kind of tempting to go around shooting the world until it does what we want, but it tends to have extremely unpleasant consequences. Which is why we're trying the diplomatic route, it tends to be ineffectual a lot of the time but you'd honestly be surprised the kind of effect economic sanctions can have, especially against a country that depends on foreign trade the way Iran does.