Is Iran Picking a Fight?

[Ecthy]

But a good fight between Iran and US has nothing to do with WW3. WTF?

[snoopy369]

Perhaps Ecthy's implying we should provide Iran with the nuclear power they're asking for.

Iran, meet the American Trident Nuclear Power Transmitting Device

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ecthy
But a good fight between Iran and US has nothing to do with WW3. WTF?

It does if the Chinese feel their oil supplies threatened with the fall of anothe major ME oil producer to the US.

[Lancer]

Do you see a connection? US-Iran war and WW3? I see no connection myself.

[Lancer]

Would China invade Iran too or join the Iranians vs the US?

[Ecthy]

China would invade Canada.

[GePap]

The US could not stay in Iraq without the support of the Iraqi people, because if the Iraqis rose up against US forces, then the Saudis and Kuwaitis would hardly back the US over their "brothers". And fancy guns are nothing but clubs without bullets, and the US would be utterly unable to supply their forces in a totally hostile land.

Any notion that the US could stay in Iraq without the tacit approval of most Iraqis is insanity. NO army can occupy any country without at least the tacit nonaction of the majority of the population.

People grossly and horrendously overestimate military power. Which is exactly why we are in this moronic mess in Iraq in the first place, because the neo-cons were stupid enought to think that if the US Army went into Iraq with the bigegst guns, all of a sudden everyone would do what we told them to do. Newsflash, not true. Just look at Sadr. He rose in rebellion against the US, and now he leads a vital Shiite block in the government. Not much the US was able to do about him.

[snoopy369]

How many people saw a connection between some crown prince and The Great War?

Yet ...

Often wars start over quite random events, because of greater geopolitical situations. Who's to say that in 20 years we won't look back and see this as the starting point?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lancer
Would China invade Iran too or join the Iranians vs the US?

Although I would sure hope it would never come to that. I would imagine that the Chinese would join the Iranians. Their relationship appears to be warming all the time.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
The US could not stay in Iraq without the support of the Iraqi people, because if the Iraqis rose up against US forces, then the Saudis and Kuwaitis would hardly back the US over their "brothers". And fancy guns are nothing but clubs without bullets, and the US would be utterly unable to supply their forces in a totally hostile land.

Any notion that the US could stay in Iraq without the tacit approval of most Iraqis is insanity. NO army can occupy any country without at least the tacit nonaction of the majority of the population.

People grossly and horrendously overestimate military power. Which is exactly why we are in this moronic mess in Iraq in the first place, because the neo-cons were stupid enought to think that if the US Army went into Iraq with the bigegst guns, all of a sudden everyone would do what we told them to do. Newsflash, not true. Just look at Sadr. He rose in rebellion against the US, and now he leads a vital Shiite block in the government. Not much the US was able to do about him.

Once again...here is a perfect example of someone with absolutely no idea how a military can enforce an occupation of a foriegn country. There is absolutely no doubt that the US could stay in Iraq as long as the American people maintained the political will to do so.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369
How many people saw a connection between some crown prince and The Great War?

Yet ...

Often wars start over quite random events, because of greater geopolitical situations. Who's to say that in 20 years we won't look back and see this as the starting point?

A very true...and hopefully not prophetic post.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by snoopy369
How many people saw a connection between some crown prince and The Great War?

Yet ...

Often wars start over quite random events, because of greater geopolitical situations. Who's to say that in 20 years we won't look back and see this as the starting point?

Snoopy, that's what I'm speculating. A war starting over Iranians killing US soldiers. If the US allows that...we're screwed.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GePap
The US could not stay in Iraq without the support of the Iraqi people, because if the Iraqis rose up against US forces, then the Saudis and Kuwaitis would hardly back the US over their "brothers". And fancy guns are nothing but clubs without bullets, and the US would be utterly unable to supply their forces in a totally hostile land.

Any notion that the US could stay in Iraq without the tacit approval of most Iraqis is insanity. NO army can occupy any country without at least the tacit nonaction of the majority of the population.

People grossly and horrendously overestimate military power. Which is exactly why we are in this moronic mess in Iraq in the first place, because the neo-cons were stupid enought to think that if the US Army went into Iraq with the bigegst guns, all of a sudden everyone would do what we told them to do. Newsflash, not true. Just look at Sadr. He rose in rebellion against the US, and now he leads a vital Shiite block in the government. Not much the US was able to do about him.

Huh? Saudis and Kuwatis? What say do they have in this matter?

Saudia Arabia and Kuwait will support us for as long as we're there, or at least for the far, foreseeable future. The Kuwaiti government not only is greatly in our debt for removing the one major threat to their existence, but they have a HUGE interest in us staying in Iraq (and therefore keeping them weak).
The Saudi government is a bit less on our side, but they are definitely still there. They enjoy the friendship of the USA, and aren't going to risk that.

You're right that we can't just walk in militarily and run the country; but you'd be surprised at how many nations make that mistake. Pretty much all of them ... except those with no ability to take another nation's territory, like France

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Once again...here is a perfect example of someone with absolutely no idea how a military can enforce an occupation of a foriegn country. There is absolutely no doubt that the US could stay in Iraq as long as the American people maintained the political will to do so.

And you know how!?



Newsflash, the Gulf is very far away form the US. The US can only keep its forces in Iraq if it has working bases from which to bring in supplies and basic food, gasoline, spare parts. The Us can only do so thanks to the vast logistical bases that have been built in the Gulf over the last two decades, but the US can only make use of them with the approval of the countries on whcih these bases sit, KSA, Kuwait, and so forth. Beyond that,the US does not have the manpower to try to force all these countries to keep their bases open and keep its supply lines open in Iraq. Heck, the US does not have enough men to patrol most of Iraq as is, and you are daft enough to think that if the populace as a whole wanted the US out the US could keep control?! We can't even keep control of Fallujah, or Ramadi. The US can ggo in, bomb, try to drive people out, but then it does not have the manpower to keep them secure, the US pulls out, and control is miidiately lost. If the US can't a single City in Iraq with any certainty, you think it can control the entire country???!!:Lol:

Give me a break.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap




And you know how!?



Newsflash, the Gulf is very far away form the US. The US can only keep its forces in Iraq if it has working bases from which to bring in supplies and basic food, gasoline, spare parts. The Us can only do so thanks to the vast logistical bases that have been built in the Gulf over the last two decades, but the US can only make use of them with the approval of the countries on whcih these bases sit, KSA, Kuwait, and so forth. Beyond that,the US does not have the manpower to try to force all these countries to keep their bases open and keep its supply lines open in Iraq. Heck, the US does not have enough men to patrol most of Iraq as is, and you are daft enough to think that if the populace as a whole wanted the US out the US could keep control?! We can't even keep control of Fallujah, or Ramadi. The US can ggo in, bomb, try to drive people out, but then it does not have the manpower to keep them secure, the US pulls out, and control is miidiately lost. If the US can't a single City in Iraq with any certainty, you think it can control the entire country???!!:Lol:

Give me a break.

If ignorance is bliss, then I congratulate you on a happy life!

The key here is the political will to do things that are necessary to subdue a population. The U.S. has led a VERY vanilla occupation. I can assure you that a quite sizable portion of the Iraqi's would help us as well for the right price. Your thoughts of Kuwait and Saudi are ludicrous. The Kuwaitis and the Saudis hate the Iraqis...and that has nothing to do with religion.