Is Iran Picking a Fight?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Tuberski
You guys do know that the US Army just changed the max enlistment age to 42 don't you?

ACK!

Yikes, they get up to 48 and I might have to put my money where my mouth is.

[Ecthy]

Maybe you should let the Russian forces walk over Iraq one single time, without any intentions of occupying.

I doubt there'll be any insurgency left. Or anything for that matter

[Victor Galis]

France has nuclear weapons

[Lancer]

Russians have a hard enough time keeping their own moslems from blowing stuff up. Still, any port in a storm.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
France has nuclear weapons

Yes, and in 50 years they'll be the first moslem dominated (population wise) country in europe.

[Ecthy]

There's only one thing about what will be in 50 years from now that we know for sure: Lancer will be gone.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Increase the enlistment age to 60 and offer to declare war on France and how many would sign up?"

Then send em to Iraq, yup, this sounds military.

What? Their French.

Look at em! They don't bathe regularly!

That's French!

Ish.

[Lancer]

The French are wonderful people with a rich culture. What's a little BO between friends?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Lancer
The French are wonderful people with a rich culture. What's a little BO between friends?

And the Babylonian and Persian Empires were chop suey?

Alexander had to attack them before they won a Cultural Victory!

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Haha. What, exactly, do you remember me predicting?

Perhaps you don't recall that the reasons that I said were justification for war, while including many of the standard ones, were in essence much different than the main stream Apolytoner's?

So what? The only Apolytoner that backed going to war for rational reasons was Laz, who based his suport for the war purely on the humanitarian aspect of getting rid of Saddam. While I find it argueable, it is a fine reason.

Even the standard neo-con reasoning for the war, the notion the US could use military power to democraticze the middle east I think is fundamentally wrong, and that false ideology, that and terrible execution by Rummy, are the reasons for why Iraq is where it is today.

This has been an exercise in influence denial and influence gathering in the region. If you will review our threads from before the fighting started, I believe that you will see that it was indeed me that was talking about a result that is closer to reality. Although, in all honesty, we both missed terribly.

I fail to recall where you said that at the end victory would not be in the hands of the US, because that is the simple reality. "victory in Iraq", whatever that is, will not in the end be brought by direct US action. The US military has failed to bring about security, and it has nothing to do with the US being "lenient". The US does not have enough men for even the harsh response, and a hasrh response would fail as well, because in the age of nationalism, a local despot is better than a foreign one, and I think you are totally wrong to think we would find sufficient Quislings to do our bidding. A blunt, bloody US occupation would fail just as a bloody, blunt Soviet occupation in Afghanistan failed.

I think (there is less absolutism, Sik...) the use of military power has changed in the modern world. You can certainly use it to bring about total defeat or annahilation of an enemy like never before. But any goal less than that is increasingly out of reach. Its too expensive and blunt an instrument for the repression of foreign peoples, in the age of nationalism. Armies are ever smaller compared to the population as a whole, and new tools and economies give more power than ever to individuals. Yes, its easier to blow up a city with modern military power, but if what you want to do is control the city, its harder than ever.