Re: M1 Abrams Tank (Let's Send 100 Into Downtown Tehran...)

On Oct 27, 10:35 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<8934bca3-94d1-4dfe-8bff-225e81a7e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,



 SilentOtto <silento...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:53 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <khvde5psfgvff20ea5uqmkv83t0eai4...@xxxxxxx>,
 Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

M1 Abrams Tank Tearing it Apart

The M1 Abrams is a main battle tank produced in the United States. The
M1 is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff
and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972. It
is a well armed, heavily armored, and highly mobile tank designed for
modern armored ground warfare.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=204270&page=3

Only Americans fail to understand that no one on this planet can
withstand the United States military.

No group, no nation, no combination of nations.

The only ones who /can/ defeat it are...yes, that's right, class:
Americans.

Many Americans are glad to do nothing else.

Yet even THAT doesn't really work. The US military wins anyway...and
later on everyone has to get together and PRETEND we lost.

The Iranians are painfully aware that Obama only has three years left,
and he's likely to be a lame duck for the last two.

Like every other chest thumping rightard who thinks we should drive
our tanks into Tehran, you fail to answer the most important question.

PG thinks we should invade Iran.

Patriot Gaymes is an idiot who thinks the solution to any problem
involves a gun in some capacity.

When examining causes and players in
the War on Terror, sooner or later you find that Iran IS the Global
Jihad.

That's what all the rightards were saying about Iraq prior to 2003.

Without Iran, there is no Anwar Sadat assassination, no 1983 Beirut
bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers attack, 2000 USS Cole attack, 9/11 Attack,
Iraq insurgency, Afghani insurgency, 2006 Hizbullah War, nor a 2008
HAMAS war--in fact, no War of Terror at all.

It looks to me like you just listed every terrorist attack that
entered your rightarded little mind and then blamed them on Iran
without a shred of evidence.

Beyond setting an example that Islamic countries can overthrow their
western supported dictators, Iran had nothing to do with most of the
incidents you list.

And, as far as setting the example goes, the credit for that should
more properly go to Egypt.

PG thinks you take the war to the enemy. And while I agree, I don't
think you go in THERE with Abrams A1A2's.

Patriot Gaymes just wants to kill people who aren't white.

He's not fussy about who, where or why.

I think that since we CAN, we don't need to.

PG may never have examined a topographical map (with roads, reservoirs,
rivers, mining centers and oil fields, and population centers), or
actually done all the necessary math.

That's a pretty sure bet. He's not very bright.

I have though.

Marching on Tehran with ground forces would be a logistical nightmare
filled with bad roads and mountain passes.

Although, I will note that conquering Iran's oil rich provinces to the
west of the Zagros Mts. would be feasible.

But, that brings us back to the question...

What then?

However, he's done enough of the math to understand that any way you
calculate the equation, America wins.

That depends on your metric for defining a win.

We're currently involved in two wars that show parking your tanks in a
foreign capitol doesn't constitute a win.

Again, since America can win that way, we needn't DO it that way.
Especially since to attack Iran would be giving the Mullah's far too
much credit (and credibility).

Their hold on Iran is as tenuous as its ever been, and their hold has
never been that strong to begin with.

"Keen observers of Iran have insisted for years that the Iranian people
are pro-Western, indeed pro-American, while profoundly opposed to the
largely unelected clerical regime that rules them.  

Agreed.

"Terror Free Tomorrow's unprecedented nationwide poll of Iran offers
indisputable empirical proof that these commentators are accurate in
their anecdotal assessment. Even answering our unknown pollsters over
the telephone, Iranians have courageously asked for change."

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20R...
t.pdf

Again...

Iranians wanting change doesn't translate into support for any sort
intervention by foreign power.

I think that those Iranian kids who are telling pollsters they want
change will be the same kids setting off IEDs were we to invade.
Neither would they take kindly to any kind of overt interference in
their internal affairs.

If you're suggesting that we wait and allow the Iranians to settle the
matter of their government for themselves, I wholeheartedly agree.

What then?

The peerless United States military IS the answer to the most important
question, dummy.

Right up until the above mentioned IEDs start exploding...

It's not enough to destroy a countries military establishment, which
our military is good at. You also have to find a means to pacify the
people, which our military seems to be very bad at.

It's that last bit that consistently turns out to be the problem in
all modern wars.

Bush failed to answer that question in -both- of his wars, neither did
you rightards press him for an answer.

We've seen where that's gotten us.

1) Bin Laden is now nothing more than the Rush Limbaugh of the Global
Jihad (minus the mansion, the $ millions and the high ratings).

Yet, we didn't kill him.

We've seen how "vanquished" foes in Afghanistan can resurge, haven't
we?

2) There's no longer a group called "al-Qaeda," but then there never
was. Now when people refer to "al-Qaeda," it turns out that they're not
referring to bin Laden or his associates, they're actually referring to
Qutbists in general.

People who've studied the matter have never thought anything else.

3) Qutbism isn't the romantic ideal it used to be.

Neither is it as dead as you seem to be implying.

4) The sham democracy of Iran has finally been shown up for the disgrace
that it is. The Iranian people are now behaving exactly the way they
behaved back in 1978-1979. They can clearly see what you can't.

I clearly see the unrest in Iran.

I also see the weakness of the Mullahs.

But, I seriously doubt that translates into support for any sort of
outside intervention.

If you think it does, then I suggest you're as batshit crazy as
Wolfowitz was when he compared the "liberation" of Iraq to the
liberation of France during WWII.

Neither does the current state of affairs in Iran have much to do with
our invasion of Iraq. Young Iranians were chaffing at the bit the
Mullahs have placed on them -long- before we invaded Iraq.

The desire for increased freedom among the Iranian youth is more an
unintended consequence of the very real efforts the revolutionary
regime made in improving educational standards in Iran, not a
byproduct of the overthrow of Saddam. Iran created a class of young,
educated people who don't like being told what to do or what to
think.

What they're going through now is in many ways similar to what this
country went through in the sixties. Except, it's far worse for the
Mullahs because the dictatorial structure of the Iranian government is
ill equipped to deal with such unrest.

You're trying to claim credit where credit isn't due.

5) Libya has given up its WMD program, and has to be extremely careful
in support activities with jihadis.

That was a diplomatic triumph that had been in the works and moving
along well before 2001 and the later Iraq invasion.

The Iraq invasion may have persuaded Quadaffi that having WMDs weren't
worth the risk, but he was already on the path of normalizing
relations with the west. Neither is it clear that he had any desire
to supply jhadi groups with WMDs. Saddam certainly hadn't shown any
such inclination.

While the invasion of Iraq may have played a role in normalizing
international relations with Libya, it was a -small- roll, not
pivotal.

6) Iraq has lost all its dormant WMD capabilities--they're no longer in
breach of UN SCRES 687. The Ba'ath party ist kaput. Syria is no longer
profiting from Saddam's circumvention of the UN's OFF program. The
sanctions, which had penned the Iraqi People into what can only be
compared to an American Indian Reservation, have been lifted. The Iraq
Army no longer threatens Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran or Israel.

The Iraqi army hadn't been a threat to any of those countries since
the Gulf War and the experts on the region full well knew it.

It's dormant WMD programs were being effectively neutralized by the
sanctions.

The Ba'ath party might be dead as a viable political party in Iraq,
but it isn't dead as an ideological movement. There are still plenty
of Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria. Many of them were blowing up our
troops until we paid them off and agreed not to try and bring them
under control of the Maliki government.

It's true Syria is no longer making money helping Saddam circumvent
the OFF program. But, that accomplishment came at a pretty stiff
price.

Neither is the current Iraqi government in any way secure. It's
viewed with suspicion by both the Sunni and the Shia and it's long
term viability is in serious doubt.

What's less in doubt are the chances of a full blown civil war
breaking out.

All that for only 4000+ dead Americans and a couple trillion
dollars...

7) Many, many tens of thousands of jihadis have been killed. Many
hundreds of jihad organizations have been compromised, dispersed or
destroyed.

That's the thing...

Islamic countries can keep growing more jihadis. Look to the
demographic structure of any of the Islamic countries you've been
going on about.

Even if the "many tens of thousands" figure you cite is accurate, and
I've absolutely no reason to believe it is, it would still be a drop
in the bucket.

8) Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, the Emirates, and Kuwait all
have to deal with the pressures of the democratic movements growing on
their own soil.

Many of the countries you mentioned are also dealing with a growing
fundamentalist movements on their own soil.

If you're trying to claim some sort of victory for democracy, you are -
way- premature.

But then...

That's a pretty consistent failing among rightards.

I don't know how many times I was told straight up by the rightards in
these groups that we had won, full stop and no caveats, in both
Afghanistan and Iraq.

I kept telling them that resistance movements take time to get
organized. I pointed out that it took the Afghans three years before
they were more than a nuisance to the Soviets and five years before
they became remotely effective.

We see now who was right...

Reading your list of "accomplishments" seems like more of the same.

Heh heh...

Rightards...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.









Heh heh...

Rightards...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.

Cowboys, all of them:

http://www.jungnewyork.com/images/sarnecki.jpg

--
Neolibertarian

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people under the
pretense of taking care of them."
        ---Thomas Jefferson

.

Relevant Pages

  • Iran (nbc)
    ... In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. ... First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed, and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. ... In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Iran (nbc)
    ... And so Iran, Syria and Lebanon are justified in attacking the US because we are supplying weapons to their enemy, Israel? ... In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. ... First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed, and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. ... In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • OT - Time of the Assassins
    ... Bushists Stirring Iraq, Iran Into a Bloody Stew ... Bush Administration is preparing to designate as a "global terrorist ... So the Iranians are helping the Mahdi Army assassinate Tehran's best ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • @@ Guess who likes the G.I.s in Iraq: Look in Irans Halls of Power @@
    ... Guess Who Likes the G.I.'s in Iraq ... Iran, in other words, had for decades been both the theological center of Shia Islam ... officials at all levels of government here say they see the American ... Iranians know that American forces, now stretched thin, are unlikely to invade Iran. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Apologize for Iraq?
    ... "Doing something" meaning if the US pulls out of Iraq? ... No,it meant getting stable,peaceful countries established in the ME. ... More control over Gulf countries gives the Iranians plenty of control over ... You forget that Iran is working towards nuclear weapons and has stated ...
    (sci.military.naval)