Print

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

[Urist_McDrowner]

According to the head of a UN Human Rights Council, casualties in Libya were around 10-15 000.

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats. I'm not really sure how that situation is anything at all like Iran. Given the strength of their secret police, you wouldn't be able to foment a revolution before hand. So, what, you drop bombs and hope that you inspire an uprising among people who you've just bombed. Come on.

Also, funny that you should bring up the initial phase of the Iraq war. Yeah, you lost 172; then, you lost over 4000 more. I'm not saying you won't be able to do quickly eliminate most military materiel; I'm saying that after you do that, THEN you're going to have a lot of people die. If you bomb the hell of Iran and don't establish order quickly, all you'll end up doing is producing a civil war zone as pro- and anti-establishment forces argue, fight, and eventually kill each other; neither of them will like the U.S. So, you'll just end up with a violent, war-torn area that is a seething hot bed of resentment against the US. Which is were all those terrorist organisations recruit from; the same organisations that you cite as reason to invade in the first place.

So, you send troops in. Troops that, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, will die in droves. Wouldn't be surprised if you were hit by UN sanctions as well, actually, but that's neither here nor there.

 
As I said before, my source for the waiting for the Ayatollah to die was conversation with my coworkers. So no, I can't provide references online. Fine if you don't believe me, it still doesn't change the fact that an invasion would be a horribly bad idea.

People who die, voluntarily, in the case of their own freedom and for the freedom of their children and their grandchildren, knowing they can die, is a heroic thing to do. How dare you degrade those who spill their blood for something greater than themselves. How dare you reject the sacrifices that let you run your mouth on the internet without the Gestapo kicking in your door. The same argument could be used for letting Hitler kill all the Jews and Poles and Russians and Frenchmen he wanted to because it would be less deaths than the amount that would occur from fighting back.

My point about bringing up Iraq is, we didn't lose very much when we fought. We wouldn't lose 4000 more because we just pack out and leave. The broken Iranian government would be powerless to stop the Green Movement.

BTW, learn how the UN works, we wouldn't get sanctions because the UK is our buddy and the world loses more by banning trade with us than they gain. And read your own stats. That counted insurgent and government forces. The only guy NATO lost was a British airman who died in a traffic accident in Italy.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Israel was given a small fraction of its  current territory. It was not given the West Bank or Gaza Strip. And the Hebrews weren't there first, there were Caanaanite and the like before them. And don't forget the Homo erectus.

If Muslim history is any precedent, the Muslim governments gave the Jews Gaza and the West Bank by rolling over and getting beat by an outgunned and outnumbered force because the Muslim governments have, if their performance is any indication, the martial skill of a WoW player. Wait, not even that, because at least the WoW player can coordinate group action between several actors.

[darkrider2]

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

[Urist_McDrowner]

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

[darkrider2]

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

What

You really don't regard them as human beings do you?

[Urist_McDrowner]

America seems to have a pretty bad history of walking into the middle east, blowing everything to shit and then leaving after they've "won" without helping anyone in the region rebuild afterwards.

Honestly I don't blame em. We're dicks.

We don't leave after we win. That's the whole friggin problem. It's Colin Powell's "pottery barn" theory that says we should stay, that's why we stuck around in Iraq after just wrecking it and walking out like we could have

What

You really don't regard them as human beings do you?

To the contrary, our present circumstance proved that all sticking around does is burn money and American lives. We're no better off in Iraq than when we started. The fact is, according to UN resolution 1441, Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire, and as such, the United States was at war with Iraq since the second that resolution was ratified. If we had just gotten rid of the WMDs, which old but still lethal chemical weapons were and Georges Sada (Iraqi Air General) testified the rest went to Syria, we could have just left.

[Osmosis Jones]

People who die, voluntarily, in the case of their own freedom and for the freedom of their children and their grandchildren, knowing they can die, is a heroic thing to do. How dare you degrade those who spill their blood for something greater than themselves. How dare you reject the sacrifices that let you run your mouth on the internet without the Gestapo kicking in your door. The same argument could be used for letting Hitler kill all the Jews and Poles and Russians and Frenchmen he wanted to because it would be less deaths than the amount that would occur from fighting back.

How dare I? You accuse me of irrespect to the dead when I try and advocate avoiding death? Do you know what war does to families? Do you really think it some glorious, noble thing? Look to your own words before you accuse me. I'm not the one talking about killing people in a country that is no military threat to your own, with a population that do not want you there. Just because people are serving their country does not make their deaths any more senseless. I will respect the soldiers that serve for their willingness to do so, but that doesn't mean I have to blindly support the people who send them to die.

Now, on to your next point; you want to just bug out leave a disorganised protest movement, which has no weapons, central leadership or even a unifying ideology beyond dissatisfaction with the current regime, to fight the remnants of Iran's standing army? Who will have access to military grade equipment? Who will have a depleted but still extant command structure? Who have the unifying goal of maintaining the status quo? How do you not see that turning into a bloodbath?!

What the hell does NATO casualties have to do with the link I posted? Read what I said;

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats.

My argument is, you'll either end up with a slaughter of Iranians and a failed state; which means lots of irrational actors with a hatred of the U.S. Or you get an occupied state with a still significant number of U.S. hating irrational actors, and a U.S. death toll. How is either by any means an improvement over the status quo?

[Urist_McDrowner]

You fallaciously assume that none of the military will defect, that the rebels can't buy arms from the black market, or that I said I'm fine with the US giving them weapons. YOU YOURSELF, have said that they are waiting for the death of the Ayatollah to make changes. Changes we both know can only happen violently. The difference between my plan and yours is that in my plan, there won't be a nuclear weapon on the loose when the manure makes contact with the fan.

[Osmosis Jones]

Defectors and black market. Solid strategy that. Rely on things that are by definition fickle and unreliable. Not to mention those things go both ways; remember, just because there is a large population that resents the regime, doesn't mean there aren't also those that support it.

Giving weapons to them... let's run through the options there:

You dump the weapons and leave without overseeing distribution. Some people will be lucky and get armed, sure. With their national service, they probably even know enough to look after their weapons and avoid shooting themselves, though they will still lack against a standing military. Of course, a few of the weapon caches will probably be captured by the remnants of the Iranian guard. Others, well, humans are bastards. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those weapons ended up on the black market, or hoarded by certain factions. You still don't have the command structure or leadership, but hey, you avoid U.S. casualties, right? Iranians still have a civil war though.

You distribute the weapons, THEN bug out. Now everyone's armed. They may even fight alongside each other for a while... but again, no command  structure, differing factions. That *will* break down, and then? Iranians have a civil war with multiple sides.

You distribute weapons, and then leave advisors to act as liason and training. How popular do you think they'll be? These people are in a war because of you, do you think they'll listen to what you say? Even if they do, Iranians still have a civil war.

You distribute weapons, and stay to provide enough security to establish a transitory government? You know, that sounds a lot like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Sigh...

Look, what I am trying to say here is that there is no good ending to this if you actually invade. Lots of people will die, no matter what subsequent choices you make. The reason you gave for why the Iranian government was to stop the "patient going through more pain"; well, every outcome post invasion is going to be far more painful then leaving them be.


Finally, you say we both know peaceful can't happen?

Now, THAT is fallacious.

Only you think it can't happen peacefully. I believe it can, as do the people who are waiting. Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to try it their way before you roll in guns blazing?



With that, I'm done. I wipe my hands of this mess. Aqizzar, I apologise for shitting up your thread.

[kaijyuu]

Allow me to hippie up the thread.

Give peace a chance!

[scriver]

You know how people sometimes say they wished the US would have to face a war on the home front just so they would learn what war is really like? People like McDrowner is the reason for that. People who seem to have absolutely no clue what real war is like and are unable to think of AMERICA as something else than Hollywood protagonist hero knight in shining armours in whatever new epic war flick they are showing right now. Everybody else is just worthless, faceless mooks to be shot down by the main characters.

[RedKing]

Don't you fools get it? A chance of failure is inherent in the word "risk"! Clearly, the solution is that the government never ever takes a risk ever!

I don't detest government taking risks. I object to them taking stupid risks. This was a stupid risk.

And, as always, it's not the affair that gets you, but the "cover-up". The infinite stream of "I don't recall" selective amnesia and Eric Holder engaging in more CYA than a pair of pants is what the controversy is now about.

Way to move that goalpost, bro.

Sorry, you don't get to come in and here and shit all over the place with some cockamamie conspiracy story that you heard on FreeRepublic or Glenn Beck and then redefine "what the controversy is now about" when you get bitchslapped with real information.


Y'know, I was like you once...[/lorre]
young, nationalistic, gung-ho, pro-war. After all, why shouldn't I be? My family is intricately entwined with the military. Both grandfathers served in WWII, my father was a 32-year career Navy man who was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, my half-brother is still in uniform and currently awaiting orders for his 5th deployment since 2001. I'd have been in myself, but for a bum ticker.

Back in '91, I was wearing desert camo to school and loudly proclaiming that all those stupid hippie peaceniks protesting "No Blood For Oil" should be rounded up and shot as traitors. And then several funny things happened.

I spent some time overseas.
I went to college. Got a history degree.
I had some high school friends who enlisted come home from deployments like Haiti and Bosnia, and they weren't the same people anymore.
I came to realize that this shit has consequences. That we don't always get it right. And that when we don't get it right, and people die as a result, that's a blood guilt that's difficult to erase.
I've seen my bro come home from successive deployments, each time leaving a little bit more of himself behind somewhere. He's survived enough IEDs and sniper near-misses to qualify as a goddamn miracle. Only time will tell if his brain is going to suffer from being repeatedly knocked around like a dried bean in a tin can. I've seen his marriage become a casualty to the war, and my niece become the collateral damage.
I came to fully understand that soldiers are the LAST people to rejoice in going to war and the first to welcome peace. Because they're the ones who pay the price of war, on the battlefield and at home.

And so, now I am not the stupid little fuck I was 20 years ago. Come talk to me in 20 years.

[Toady One]

I haven't gone back and investigated exactly why there has been what looks like a deterioration in tone, but I'd appreciate it if people were more respectful of the other people in here, if not their opinions.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Hey I have a super cool idea, how about we all change the subject and talk about the all around good person Gary Johnson instead? Fiscially conservative, socially progressive, what's not to like?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fiscally conservative is not to like.