Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on February 05, 2005, 03:17:24 pm
-
Well, the latest figures point to a overwhelming victory of the pro-Iran shiite parties. Hardly what Bush wanted, isn´t it? Or is it?
Let´s "analyze this":
Bush has been engaging on war talk towards Iran for a while. Condy Rice´s words last week seem to hide a new agenda. She said an attack on Iran is not on the agenda at this time. Wich means that it is at least a possibility, since she didn´t categorically denied it.
But now there is a new card on the table, Iraq will be ruled by pro-Iran clerics, dead set on establishing an islamic "democracy".
So, Iran is afraid of a US attack, right? And the perfect place from where to launch such an attack is Iraq, right next door. It´s obvious Teeran will press the new pseudo-government into removing that threat from their borders, wich could mean they would "ask" the US forces to leave. But then Bush uses the excuse that Teeran is interfering with Iraqi politics to strike.
Bush is just aking to find a reasonable excuse to launch a strike. What could be better than "easing" a pro-Iran govt. into power?
Then they would have their cake and eat it too, right? They would get to strike Iran, and at the same time get an excuse to stay longer since now they have to deal with another "evil" govt...
:nervous:
If Bush invaded Iraq to get rid of an "axis of evil" govt., and he sees Iran as another "axis of evil" nation, what chances are there that they allow a pro-Iran govt rule in Iraq? Pretty slim, i´d say.
:rolleyes:
-
what are the chaces that no mater what happened you would find some consperoncy theory about it?
though it's been prety obvius for quite some time that Bush wants to invade Iran
-
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."
- Londo Mollari
Seems fitting yes? :D
-
Well, with the near-revolutions brewing in Iran, the US might only have to supply the insurgents with weapons and technology, then let them overthrow Tehran.
-
All Hail Bush, the new (and former) king of the Kingdom of Idiots!
-
Well, I'll try and be optimistic and hope that these people got in because they were elected in, regardless of the outcome, no matter who had one, I'm sure there was some way from which the Bush Administration could be implicated in it.
I'm just saying that until I'm proved wrong, I'm going to try to be optimistic about the result :)
-
Swamp thing, please, I beg of you, think of the children and use some formatting.
-
US Military - Overstretched.
Support for more war - Waning.
Defecit - Catastrophic
Another War = :no:
Bush = :nervous:
Me = surprised at this smilie: :arr: Yarr! That Bush be a scurvey dog! Yarr...
-
Re-election was Bushes ticket to a consequence-less war on Iran; because it's not like he has to worry about losing the next election, is it?
-
Its not really what Bush wanted but its something he couldnt avoid. New PM doesnt seem that bad though:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&xml=/news/2005/02/06/wirq06.xml
Concerning Iran:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_2555524
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/latimes17.html
Originally posted by nuclear1
Well, with the near-revolutions brewing in Iran, the US might only have to supply the insurgents with weapons and technology, then let them overthrow Tehran.
you're obviously subscribing to the neo-con wet dream news service, theres no near-revolutions brewing in Iran, and the only insurgents are a couple of thousand MEK members who are basically a cult. Even if there was a chance of supporting a revolution there, you'd still be left with an unfriendly country armed with nukes, because nobody in Iran is pro-us.
-
nobody? there are people in the US that are pro-Iran and we arn't even a totalitarian theocracy.
Bush barely won the election, if it hadn't been for the sheer and unbeleiveable incompetentce of our opposition party he wouldn't have had a chance. he has nothing aproching suport for an invasion of Iran even if there was a good reason to do so.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
nobody? there are people in the US that are pro-Iran and we arn't even a totalitarian theocracy.
Bush barely won the election, if it hadn't been for the sheer and unbeleiveable incompetentce of our opposition party he wouldn't have had a chance. he has nothing aproching suport for an invasion of Iran even if there was a good reason to do so.
Because the people in Iran will remember the US for 2 things; threatening them justnow (even if you hate your government, you generally don't welcome people invading you unless you ask them to), and the US support of the unpopular Shah. Oh, and the US support for the IRaqis against Iran in the Persian Gulf / 1st Gulf war.
The Us hasn't done a lot to endear the Iranians after all (neither has the Western world in general, of course).
Of course, there's a side issue RE: nuclear weapons - the US hasn't made any move to attack N.Korea after they went public about their program, so maybe the Iranians think they can get the same result by developing nukes.....
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
nobody? there are people in the US that are pro-Iran and we arn't even a totalitarian theocracy.
Irans a democracy you know :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
It might be a religious democracy, but thats what it is.
US didnt just support the Shah, they put him in power.
http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm
-
:arr: Yar, they be not so bad afterall ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
he has nothing aproching suport for an invasion of Iran even if there was a good reason to do so.
Well, aparentlly the government of Her Majesty seems to think diferent. Blair already pleadged his support on Iran, on whatever Bush decides to do. Obviouslly, we can´t call that "wide support", but still... Bush didn´t have a wide support for invading Iraq, and yet he´s there now.
But if they think Iran is a pushover like Iraq was, they have a surprise comming. Iran managed to kick the ass of Iraq, even though Iraq had the best army money could buy. Iranians are seasoned soldiers, with a touch of fanaticism to boot. The diference between Iran and Iraq is that in Iraq there was a wide anti-Saddam sentiment, that sapped the iraqi force´s strenght. But that doesn´t happen in Iran. Only a very small minority are against the current rule. And that means the army would fight any invasion in full strenght. I doubt you´d see anybody surrendering, like it happened in Iraq.
-
If Blair supported a US invasion of Iran, he would be comitting political suicide, pure and simple.
-
Swamp Thing, you thought that double jeapordy meant that if a man gets tried for murder he gets his second murder free. I think you should take a good, long mother****ing time researching government, history, law, and logic before you even think about doing political analysis.
A core representative of the Bush administration said they're not invading Iran yet. They have no reason to lie, and it's not Bush's style to change his mind. Ever.
They said they wouldn't invade Iran yet, and they won't invade Iran yet- note the word that comes after "Iran". They currently lack the capacity to mount an attack- almost our entire army is currently holding on by the fingernails to Iraq, a foothold Bush is not going to let go of willingly, and unlike Iraq's army, which has a history of running away every time the other side doesn't consist of unarmed small children, Iran's has a history of using small children, in mass kamikaze attacks swarming over their better-armed enemy, and winning. Because they are crazy and scary and **** **** up Jihad-style.
You lot are making the same stupid mistake the Democrats have made for the past ten years, which is assuming that because the other guys are stupid and evil they're stupider and eviller than you are. Bush is not running around randomly invading because he's a murderous cack-head; he's running around randomly invading because he's a murderous cack-head with a plan to Save the World. He wants to take over the Middle East; that much is clear, it's the details he consistently lies about. He at least superficially appears to imagine that domination of the region will solve all his problems- giving him eventual control over the source of his most evident threat, cowing allies and enemies alike by showing a dramatic reversion of gunboat diplomacy, and aiding the ailing economy by giving us lots of cheap fuel.
Giving up Iraq, which is what mass withdrawal of forces would amount to right now, in no way serves that plan. Invading Iran only to give it up to attack Syria or whoever in a couple years in no way serves that plan. He needs to secure Iraq first- like he keeps saying, work the locals up into the Cold War-style stooges he needs, possibly get a friendly dictator solidly in power depending on how delusional he is about 'spreading freedom'. Once he does that, he will use Iraq as a staging area to invade Iran or Syria, and continue on down the line until he's taken all nations of questionable allegiance in the area.
It's not a bad plan, as plans go. It's not the most foolproof one ever, either, and in politics you'd have to be a fool yourself to not count on the ingenuity of fools. In other words, he won't likely be any more successful than he's been so far. But at least he should be marginally predictable on that front for a little while. It's his domestic policies that have me worried- I have not a clue where he's going with that stuff right now, except that it looks foreboding, and nobody else seems to have much clearer a theory. Which really sucks, 'cause at the end of the day I care considerably more about what happens to me than what happens to some Iraqi.
Oh, and you're all inferior and a lot of poop-heads. Something like that. Yeah.
-
Like I keep saying, nothing is going to happen to Iran in the near future, at least not in the invasion/occupation/mass killing sort of way. Airstrikes, small-scale special forces crap...maybe, if they can keep quiet about it.
And actually, I was the one who mentioned the Double Jeopardy thing, mostly on account of my entire knowledge of those laws consisiting of watching the movie Double Jeopardy a few years ago (or rather, catching a few glimpses over my shoulder between respawns).
-
Iran uses small children in mass suicide attacks? Yees, and they eat babies too. :rolleyes:
And nobodys talking about invading Iran, even the ****ing neo-cons realise this isnt possible. Stop talking about its never going to happen. they'll just bomb the **** out of it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Iran uses small children in mass suicide attacks? Yees, and they eat babies too. :rolleyes:
And nobodys talking about invading Iran, even the ****ing neo-cons realise this isnt possible. Stop talking about its never going to happen. they'll just bomb the **** out of it.
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/104.htm
[q]
Lacking the equipment to open secure passages through Iraqi minefields, and having too few tanks, the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." The Iranians made little, if any, progress despite these sacrifices. Perhaps as a result of this performance, Tehran, for the first time, used a regular army unit, the 92nd Armored Division, at the Battle of the Marshes a few weeks later.
[/q]
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html
[q]Back in 1986 I talked Penthouse magazine into giving me an assignment to write the story: "How to Get a Date in Revolutionary Iran." The premise was that hormones are hormones, and those wacky kids in Tehran, most of whom could still remember the Shah, had to be finding some way to meet members of the opposite sex. So I headed off to Iran to find out the truth. If you are interested in such stuff, the only time a single man and woman not from the same family could be together in private back then was in a taxi (he being the driver), so all the teenage boys who had or could borrow cars turned them into taxis. This, of course, put all the power in the hands of the woman since she could see him but he had to take pot luck.
I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.[/q]
(I realise it's not exactly concrete, but best I could see in 5 minutes)
On a completely unrelated note; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm
[q]US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.
[/q]
No idea if it's true or not.
-
I seem to remember reading that there were/are reports of the Kurds fleeing into Iraq, away from Iran, which would be consistant with an attack by the Iranians. Even if its not 100% to either side of the story, there is still enough evidence for reasonable doubt.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And actually, I was the one who mentioned the Double Jeopardy thing, mostly on account of my entire knowledge of those laws consisiting of watching the movie Double Jeopardy a few years ago (or rather, catching a few glimpses over my shoulder between respawns).
I never saw the movie but IIRC the premise was that she was tried and convicted of the murder (not attempted murder) of her husband who turned out to be faking it.
Even in that case I think she'd still have ended up on trial for the second attempt. Even of DJ meant she couldn't be convicted of his murder the second time round (which is doubtful) it would be easy to send her down for a lesser crime. You could easily put her on trial for assault, GBH, carrying with intent etc.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I never saw the movie but IIRC the premise was that she was tried and convicted of the murder (not attempted murder) of her husband who turned out to be faking it.
Even in that case I think she'd still have ended up on trial for the second attempt. Even of DJ meant she couldn't be convicted of his murder the second time round (which is doubtful) it would be easy to send her down for a lesser crime. You could easily put her on trial for assault, GBH, carrying with intent etc.
See the imdb goofs;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/goofs
[q]Factual errors:
Double jeopardy does not work in the way described in the film. The same jurisdiction can not put you on trial for the exact same crime under the exact same law, but other jurisdictions can if you also violate the law there during the commission of your crime. The killing of the husband, had it been murder, would have been a second crime committed in another jurisdiction (moreover, it would have been a second, distinct crime). She could have been put on trial and sent back to prison (though presumably the original sentence would have been cancelled).[/q]
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Swamp Thing, you thought that double jeapordy meant that if a man gets tried for murder he gets his second murder free. I think you should take a good, long mother****ing time researching government, history, law, and logic before you even think about doing political analysis.
You know, this is so hilarious that it´s actually sad. Maybe you have me confused with someone else, i don´t know. What i do know is that you chewed my head off for what i said, and then went yourself and said the same thing. How weird is that?
Infact, had you bothered to read a little, you would find an amazing thing, and that is that i´m the biggest Bush basher here. But somehow you managed to read the exact opposite in my words...
And that, my friend, is friggin´ hillarious!
So, here´s a big WTF for you.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
No you didn't. The fact that through titanic volumes of ignorance you arrived at a vaguely similar conclusion to mine- that someday, Iran might be a target, and that Iraq will be involved somehow- is largely irrelevant. By that token, Emmerich is a brilliant prognosticator for showing in his movies, time and time again, bad things happening in New York- and look! Four years ago, something bad happened in New York! Wow, he's even better than you are, he got the explosions and the tower bits sorta right!
I realize it may be a bit of an ego hit to the immature minds here to realize that you are neither wise nor well-read on any issue, but to be perfectly frank your current political posts leave very little dignity for you to defend. At the very bloody least, start getting the Wilson Quarterly, or read the newspapers once a month. Once you've got to the level of a basic working knowledge of how your own and various other significant governments operate, we can work on having you speculate about what that means for present and future. Until then, I and the rest of America would really rather if you didn't vote or attend jury duty, as well. kthxbye!
-
You guys done? Or shall I go ahead and start banning people?
-
How hard would it be to invade America now-a-days when its military resources are stretched all over the world?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/104.htm
An un-named journalist eh?
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html
http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=4462&repository=0001_article]
Cant find anything at all about this penthouse article he was writing.
They're talking about the Basiji, an Iranian volunteer militia that did preform mass human wave attacks sometimes over minefields against the Iraqis. They were men in their early twenties/late teens not small children.
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.
[/q]
No idea if it's true or not.
Bear in mind the US was Iraqs allys at the time and Iran was public enemy no.2 in the US. The Kurds were allied with the Iranians during the war so its highly unlikely the Iranians gassed their allys. there was a battle near hallabjah at the time though where both sides used chemical weapons, although eyewitness's at the town say it was Iraqi Su25s that carried out the attack.