Politics – Controlling an area the size of Kansas shouldn't be a problem for the U.S. military, except that it is heavily populated and many people in the triangle don't want the Americans there and are willing to fight.
The Russians and the Chinese will never let the USA get away with seizing the world's oil. The "Ruskies" still have the means to blow us back to the stone age, and will do so if it means their survivial.
Beyond that, here is one of the initial comments from that story:
"The "Ruskies" still have the means to blow us back to the stone age, and will do so if it means their survivial."
Yes, as soon as the bread lines thin out and they can hitch a ride on a faulty government vehicle to the battlefront, they're going to whoop our asses.
At least you're consistent, judging by your comment, you are just as clueless as always. The Russians can vaporize you where you sit. They can do it with these things called ICBM's. Google this if you don't know what they are.
History is full of people with your mindset. They supported the Roman Empire, Stalin, Hitler, and every other self-serving entity. They all over-reached, and they all fell. look at history. They ALL also thought that they could continue to pursue their selfish agenda without any consequences. They were ALL wrong. People with this mind-set never learn.
History also shows that these empires leave deep scars on nations that do not heal for many generations thereafter. Some of the scars are emotional. These days we have new types of scarring with lingering effects measured in half-life. DU comes quickly to mind.
In the old days, Romans salted the fields of Carthage to prevent her competitive reestablishment. We are so clever with our new brands of toys. I'm sure the damage already done in Iraq will multiply beyond numerical comprehension if and when the gloves come off in what will essentially be another banker's war.
The oil producing countries are increasingly looking "east" (as are American companies), to the expanding economies in Asia, as their future market. We need to adjust to this changing world, instead of enforcing the old one: the days are gone when these countries were either the USA's bitch or the Russian's.
Gravel: If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation. Truly are. And two things coming at us. We're going to be irrelevant in the world. You see this in foreign affairs when you see all these other countries making arrangements by themselves; don't even invite us to the meeting. Why? We come to a meeting; we think we know it all. We're the superpowerâ;;you've got to listen to us.
"we are americans and christian we deserve that oil.
if we have to bomb for that oil then lets do it.
my kids are in elistist schools and they should not have to fight these pesky oil wars.
we in the upper class have never had to fight in these wars of aggression.
leave that up to the little folks. they seem to love to fight. this is a all voluntree army so they must like it.
each of my kids have a sports car and my wife has a large suv we need that oil I dont care about price as long as it is available.
thank you reagan for finally ridding us of this pesky whining middle class. capitalism is desgined to have two classes of people. thank god my family is in the upper class. there for the grace of god go I. god bless america.
and no i dont want universal health care. costs to much. we would have to raise taxes.
this is america dont want any of that socialism. what is mine is mine. I did ok.
Obama went to the elitist schools, not me and not most Conservatives. Universal health insurance will result in a Medicaid-style fee-for-service program for the insurance industry.
What elitist schools? You mane Harvard, the education for which he JUST finished paying back his student loans?
Imagine that - working your way through school makes you an elitist.
He also attended a prestigious private school in Hawaii. Who paid his loans? Did Dubai write him a check too?
Not a member? Sign-up today!
rhettdejesus1975
nopatacious
fyuuuuut
adamhowe1980
dokkyou08
hatukabu
Teech
bushiesRbonkers
djn3nunez3
cosmogenium
SherlockLotherington
Hobbs524
texangelwings
DeangeloMalone
GeraldGardner
engineer
RodrigoWhitaker
doggammit
gamahuche
panzerv
daducha
patternmaker
Victorys
BillSmythe
DiffeeOnline
newsarefree
alllo
Sevenduolux
Aidenag
rimbaud
cole122386
avpd85
jnbammer
Candida
dandt1612
Emmanuel70
elizabeth.brnrd
ellison.alma
Mrina
FastButNotDead
AqeoMan
marinajls
klausolg
truekolin
boobenivan
dubinaAlessandro
booony
mamasan
MyWayOnNow
bluetexasvalley
202)
Actually, we are beating the militias in Iraq. Those House members include plenty of Dems.
You mean the militias in Iraq that we're PAYING? And ARMING?
Actually, I meant the ones supplied by Iran. I have heard about the cooperation of some police and military in Iraq to the militias. I also know that the Iraqi government sacked a large number of officials for doing this, so they are dealing with the problem.
WE are paying various militias, especially Sunni, as part of the surge. The same Sunnis that have been targeting US soldiers & Iraqi police for years.
WE paid, armed & trained many of the Shi'ia militias, Sadr & others, as the Iraqi police force.
WE lost billions of dollars & hundreds of thousands of weapons to God only knows who inside Iraq.
Corruption is and has always been a tremendous problem in Iraq. I have friends who were stationed there and it is part of doing business. If you really want an effective central government in Iraq, the militias have to be disarmed. The government has to have a monopoly on the use of military force.
But the money & weapons I'm talking about were from the US, supplied or lost by the US. This has nothing to do w/the Iraqi gov't.
You're right that the gov't should be the only entity in control of para- and military force, but WE, the US, are the ones supplying the various militias.
PapaWolf: "You're right that the gov't should be the only entity in control of para- and military force"
Do you mean in all countries, including the US, or only in Iraq?
There is only one military in the U.S. Nice try.
I'm talking about the FEDERAL military and/or paramilitary - in Iraq's case, that's the militias; in ours, it's the FBI, ATF, & other federal depts w/security & police forces.
Naturally, state & local police and, IMO, the states' national guard units should be under state or local control.
The National Guard thing is kind of iffy for me. I believe it should be under state control. That way, our guardsmen will be around to assist in natural & not-so-natural disasters, and they won't be deployed overseas for extended periods, outlasting both the military & private security forces. Just my opinion.
You kinda need a government system like Saddam had.
You need to effect a change in public opinion that achieves the opposite result. Saddam's system is why people in Iraq have no concept of citizenship and simply view the government as a source of patronage.
"Saddam's system is why people in Iraq have no concept of citizenship and simply view the government as a source of patronage."
Unforuntately our own actions in terms of "patronage" have effected the same view regarding the US. They understand, and rightly so, that the US will be there forever, pumping in billions of dollars despite the Iraqi government having billions of dollars at its own disposal.
That may be true from what I've heard from returning soldiers who have worked on reconstruction projects.
DropkickaLib: "the militias have to be disarmed. The government has to have a monopoly on the use of military force."
This is a strange statement coming from an American. Don't you think that other people should have the same right to bear arms as Americans do? I know, I know, it's in the Second Amendment for you, but why should the Iraqis not to put it in their constitution?
Nothing strange or inconsistent in my comments. Gun control is irrelevant with respect to this issue. It is illegal in the U.S. to have anti-tank weapons and massive explosive devices. In any case, we don't have armed militias engaging in street fighting.
Somebody's really been into the neocon Kool-Aid! Maybe someday Big Brother will find you a spot in the Ministry of Truth...
Maybe you'll get a show on Air unAmerican...if it stay in business. Drink up Barak Hussein's Hawaiianpunch.
What's gonna happen when we DON'T invade Iran? Will the liberals admit they were full of crap for continually claiming we are "planning to go to war in Iran"? I doubt it.
Listen to W's & Cheney's rhetoric. Only a fool doesn't believe they want to invade Iran. Even after the IAEA reported that Iran hasn't been developing nuclear weapons for over 4 years, W still tried to push the same old BS.
If we don't invade, there are only 2 reasons:
1) The Congress finally got some guts & stood up to W, or
2) Public opinion was so opposed to it that the admin felt it couldn't.
Which is EXACTLY why it is vital to change public opinion so patriotic Americans will support another war in Iran. (Charge it to the national debt)
It is VITAL that the media, especially sound byte news media, pump up the fact that we MUST have access to that oil! Iran is full of terrorists. Iran is aiming new-cu-lar weapons at us. By invading Iran we secure that supply....at $200 or more per barrel which IS THE ULTIMATE PLAN!
Lie to the public and congress, scare the public stupid, invade Iran and further disrupt the region, get oil as high as possible, RAKE IN THE PROFIT!
More tax cuts and subsidies and incentives to the struggling oil companies are needed NOW to increase supply and increase prices. (Yes, it has been working that way.)
It's so beautiful and simple and believable it makes you want to cry. God bless America, God bless Bush & Cheney, mission accomplished.
And remember, IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN!
The insipidness of your remarks is typical. I am sure you didn't get the reference either.
Do you really think even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon that they could ever use it? With absolute certainty this is still a MAD world. You launch you die, no way around that. Perhaps we all die? It would be suicide to use such a device pre-emptively. You don't see the mullahs or even clerics blowing themselves up in the street in hopes of a virgin laden afterlife. That's for the dupes, the hopelessly brainwashed. The leaders didn't get to where they are by falling for such nonsense. It is always the religious leaders who have the most doubt afterall. .
And do you even think it is possible for us to simultaneously occupy Iran and Iraq? With no true allies? Further neocon stupidity. We know they wont be welcoming us with flowers this time. All great powers have fallen by overextending their reach. Should we be next?
The only country that use a nuke without getting slammed by the USA, IS the USA (and OK, maybe Israel). Saudi Arabia is already preparing to deal with the fallout from a nuclear "accident" in Iran. Such an accident will have Iran and the world begging for intervention by the world, especially the USA, to clean up the mess (sometime before the next election). Subsidiaries of compnies that normally deal with oil well disasters are already specialized to deal with nuclear accidents.
Listening to Baradei and Ritter I would think it unlikely that the Iranians would have a nuclear accident related to the development of nuclear weaponry. It would not however surprise me to see such an accident in one of their nuclear power plants sometime in the next decade. They would likely ignore us and turn to the Russians, Indians, or French for help in that event.
Because of the actions of the neocons at the beginning of this century it is virtually assured that American importance in the world community will be greatly diminished by the end. This is exactly the opposite result of their mission statement. Generally this is referred to as failure.
The point of the original post is that nuclear weapons are purely defensive in nature. Any step towards offensive use brings the potential for the end of mankind. No Mahdi, Jesus, or anything other mythical figure is going to save anyone in that event.
The Iranians are under the real fear of being attacked by the USA, and under the delusion that what kept the USA from attacking Korea was the fact that they had nuclear weapons. They tout their nuclear progress, in the face of increased sanctions, in the hope that it will deter the USA from attacking them. The USA used Iraq as their proxy in a long and costly war against Iran. You can bet Iran will do all it can to promote a friendly nieghbor in Iraq.
Good theorization. Ahmadinejad certainly is bellicose when he speaks, why? I think you explained it well. It is not that he is inviting punishment. He knows what's coming if Cheney ever has his way. He is trying to use a nuclear deterrent he does not possess.
Keep telling yourself that as we wait for a radical regime to seize power in Pakistan. You may get to see a nuke used yet.
The war against the shia miltias was a test for Maliki's government. Cheney wanted Maliki to eliminate the Mahdi army once and for all. Mailki was reluctant but complied, with the same result as USA's shock and awe. It's better to quit while you still have some awe than to dig in and expose your inability to win over the populace.
It has nothing to do with public opinion. You can recruit a militia force like the Mahdi Army regardless of whether most people support it.
What's the BS about still needing to train Iraqis? They have been holding off the World's greatest military force for years. al-Maliki (and the common shias) prefer the protection of the Mahdi Army to that of our troops or the USA-Trained police.
What's the BS about the Iraqis needing our help in rebuilding their country? Now that Bechtel is out, maybe we can replace Parsons and Halliburton with Iraqi contractors, and get the job completed and at a fraction of the cost.
We should demand al-Maliki to negotiate a cease-fire and long term truce by offerring all parties the removal of US Troops. That way, Iraq get the Peace it needs for reconcilation and the USA gets what it needs: OUT!