Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We, as a nation, are currently broken.
The U.S. military will be used as an arm of Trump's reelection campaign.
Large swaths of the electorate will fall for the ploy. It may be hard to see from the inside, but Trumps regime is the greatest threat to world peace. He was elected, and is supported by large swaths of the U.S. public. In that sense, WE are a threat to world peace. It is far past time our fellow citizens who harbor authoritarian, theocratic, tendencies (is there anything more 'un-American' than that?) sober up or are sidelined from power.
What would the West surrender in this diplomatic solution? Just the State of Israel?
I guess that you would prefer to allow that part of the world to romp over us at will.These people think that Chamberlain was a good model for "peace for our time." Maybe he really said "pieces for our time." Their version of "peace" is to be loved by the suave, urbane denizens of NYC's UN building.
What are you, four years old? Bolton wants or wanted regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, antagonizes China, supported Brexit and wants the EU to blow up. This guy literally wants to light the world on fire. Sometimes you have to deal with the world as it is and not try to make it the way you want it to be. Puny Iraq and Afghanistan have sucked us into a never ending 20 year war that's cost is trillions and killed millions of people. And Bolton the Looney toons psychopath want to do it again. Have you learned nothing about his Iraq fiasco? Still waiting on those wmds...
But yes, we have to show how macho we are to all of those countries. What could possibly go wrong starting that many wars?
Who at WAPO was at the National Training Center testing operational plans for the invasion of Iran?
Well, no one. But, I was.
Who at WAPO was in the S-3 of a brigade that took up a blocking position and repelled threat forces up to 18x its size for 30 days while sustaining only minor insignificant casualties?
No one. But, I did.
Who at WAPO drew up plans to seize and control bridges and a bridge-head over the Karun River (yeah, it's in Iran)?
No one. But, I did.
Who at WAPO actually practiced that?
No one. But, I did. I'm not airborne qualified, so I didn't jump, but I was on the ground to ensure the company commanders understood the mission and executed it properly. I am air assault qualified, so I was on the heliborne operation, in the event we need to use the 101st instead of the 82nd. We just simulated a sea launch. We did a ground operation, too, in the event weather or other factors precluded the possibility of an airborne or air assault.
Did the idiot WAPO author mention that 80% of Iran's oil and natural gas is in Khuzestan?
Why not?
Is it because the WAPO author is spewing propaganda and disinformation, or is it because the WAPO author is just stupid?
Did the moron WAPO author mention how Iran could possibly function with the loss of 80% of its oil and natural gas revenues?
Why not?
Did the stupid WAPO author mention that the US would control or blockade all Iranian ports, and that with US forces sitting in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan, Iran will not be able to import or export anything, and that Iran will derive no revenues?
Why not?
Did WAPO imbecile mention that Arabs are the majority ethnic group in Khuzestan?
Why not?
Does the idiot not understand that Arabs and Persian are genetically different, meaning their DNA is different, meaning they are not related?
Why not?
Did the WAPO author mention that the Turkic minority groups outnumber Persians in Khuzestan?
Why not?
Did the moron mention that Khuzestan has previously attempted to secede from Iran?
Why not?
Did the moron mention the Balochs?
Why not? Does the idiot author even know of the existence of Baluchistan?
Did idiot explain how the Iranian army is going to fight the Balochs and the Arabs and the US?
There's a large Kurdish group in northwest Iran. What if they decide to establish a Kurdish homeland?
Did the dumb-ass WAPO author explain how the Iranian army will fight the Balochs and the Kurds and the Arabs and the US?
Why not?
Could it be the WAPO author is totally clueless?
Do you understand air and sea-launched cruise missiles are going to take out every electrical power generation plant and all telecommunication facilities?
Do you understand the power outage is not going to be 2 hours, it's going to be 6 months to 3 years from the end of the conflict? You should know that, because that's how long it took to restore electrical power in Iraq.
Those turbines in power generation plants are not Amazon Prime with 2-day shipping. They're made to order, and they take 1-2 years to build.
So, there you are, in Iran, no electricity, no TV, no radio, no internet, no cell-phone, no land-line, the toilet doesn't work and there's no running water. You have no money, because the banks are closed and what money they had was already withdrawn by people who panicked when the bombing started. You have no food, the grocery stores have no food because they've been looted, whatever food was left in your country has been looted, or cannot be delivered, because there's no diesel and the roads and bridges and rail-lines are destroyed, and the US is blockading all ports are the borders are closed or blocked. You can't go to work, because there's no gasoline, and there's no electricity and you're out of parts or supplies so all you can do is stand around -- in the dark -- staring at each other.
What do you think Iranians are going to do?
Some will be very angry at US, but some will be very angry with their government, and that anger will spill over.
And, what does history tell us? History tells us governments always over-react. It's the one thing in addition to death and taxes you can count on.
So, pro-government Iranians will be pro-government right up to the time government troops get ignorant and do something stupid, like shoot at mobs in an attempt to disperse them.
Now, those pro-government Iranians are anti-government. They might not be pro-US, but they don't have to be, they just have to be anti-government.
Once the US is in Khuzestan, Iran will never get them out. So, Khuezstan secedes -- again -- and we have a new country.
If the Balochs secede? Now, what? Iran cannot put down a revolt in Baluchistan and fight the US.
And, if the Kurds secede? The Kurds might see this as their only possible opportunity to create a Kurdish home-land once and for all.
The Iranians cannot put down a revolt in Baluchistan and Kurdistan at the same time, and they can't do that and fight the US, either.
Iran cannot function with the loss of 80% of its oil and natural gas. The US can use that to force the Iranian government to not only step down, but to form a whole new government and even a whole new type of government, as dictated by the US.
So, US forces never have to penetrate the interior of Iran to seize any Iranian cities or engage any Iranian ground forces.
I'm guessing the idiot WAPO author doesn't understand the difference between Shi'ia and Sunni.
The Shi'ia are exactly like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in every way, and that includes suicide as taboo: you are barred from Heaven if you commit suicide.
So, "Shi'ia suicide bomber" is an oxymoron.
And, no, the US doesn't care what the rest of the World thinks, because the US has a plan and Iran is an essential critical part of that plan to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Nobody *wants* a war, including Bolton. Bolton merely wants US policy backed by military intervention, if necessary. When you make it clear to your adversaries that you are afraid of going to war (something the idiots in the media are doing now), and that the possibility of going to war is off the table (thank you pacifists), then those adversaries tend not to take you seriously (hey look! that's what's happening now).
Bolton knows that if we are to show leadership as the leader of the free world, then we must be willing to fight if necessary. That's just all there is to it. Freedom doesn't come free.
Hopefully Iran chooses the path of least resistance here. We're not exactly asking much of them.
I understand Bolton and war-hawks want to change the regime so perhaps we have a chance of having a relationship there -
No, that is not why.
Look, this is so simple, even a 5-year old can figure it out.
You need control of the eastern Russian republics.
Why?
Because they have 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, plus coal, timber, metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of the Five Central Asian States, so that you can funnel money, weapons, equipment and supplies to "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics.
Think of "Arab Spring" only different.
The people who live in eastern Russia are mostly Turkic and Turko-Mongol groups, plus indigenous groups akin to our so-called "Native Americans."
The US also needs control of the Five Central Asian States, since they have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, but no so much coal or timber, but lots of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, especially Rare Earth metals and minerals.
To get control of the Five Central Asian States, the US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered unlimited air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, and a base from which it can push its hegemony on the Five Central Asian States.
To get control of Iran, the US needs control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Check those two off the bucket-list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
When did the US become the arbiter of which nations need their regimes changed, and that the US should do it?
When the US decided it was necessary to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Those aren't my words, those are your government's words:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
Look, this is so simple, even a 5-year old can figure it out.
You need control of the eastern Russian republics.
Why?
Because they have 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, plus coal, timber, metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of the Five Central Asian States, so that you can funnel money, weapons, equipment and supplies to "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics.
Think of "Arab Spring" only different.
The people who live in eastern Russia are mostly Turkic and Turko-Mongol groups, plus indigenous groups akin to our so-called "Native Americans."
The US also needs control of the Five Central Asian States, since they have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, but no so much coal or timber, but lots of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, especially Rare Earth metals and minerals.
To get control of the Five Central Asian States, the US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered unlimited air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, and a base from which it can push its hegemony on the Five Central Asian States.
To get control of Iran, the US needs control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Check those two off the bucket-list.
When the US decided it was necessary to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Those aren't my words, those are your government's words:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
Look, this is so simple, even a 5-year old can figure it out.
You need control of the eastern Russian republics.
Why?
Because they have 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, plus coal, timber, metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of the Five Central Asian States, so that you can funnel money, weapons, equipment and supplies to "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics.
Think of "Arab Spring" only different.
The people who live in eastern Russia are mostly Turkic and Turko-Mongol groups, plus indigenous groups akin to our so-called "Native Americans."
The US also needs control of the Five Central Asian States, since they have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, but no so much coal or timber, but lots of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, especially Rare Earth metals and minerals.
To get control of the Five Central Asian States, the US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered unlimited air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, and a base from which it can push its hegemony on the Five Central Asian States.
To get control of Iran, the US needs control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Check those two off the bucket-list.
When the US decided it was necessary to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Those aren't my words, those are your government's words:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
Look, this is so simple, even a 5-year old can figure it out.
You need control of the eastern Russian republics.
Why?
Because they have 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, plus coal, timber, metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of the Five Central Asian States, so that you can funnel money, weapons, equipment and supplies to "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics.
Think of "Arab Spring" only different.
The people who live in eastern Russia are mostly Turkic and Turko-Mongol groups, plus indigenous groups akin to our so-called "Native Americans."
The US also needs control of the Five Central Asian States, since they have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, but no so much coal or timber, but lots of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, especially Rare Earth metals and minerals.
To get control of the Five Central Asian States, the US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered unlimited air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, and a base from which it can push its hegemony on the Five Central Asian States.
To get control of Iran, the US needs control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Check those two off the bucket-list.
When the US decided it was necessary to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Those aren't my words, those are your government's words:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I took the liberty of high-lighting the relevant part for the not-too-bright and the non-starters.
It was a major success.
The reason to be in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is a stepping-off point for Iran.
If and when you are successful in bringing your Geo-Strategic Plan to fruition, Bush will be hailed as a hero and the man who made it all happen.
Get used to it.
If Eastern european countries were the target why werent they taken over from 1991 to 2000 when Russia was in its most
vulnerable state in her history???
Why did it take 30 years to go through gulf war, afghan war , iraq war and an iran war which wouldnt even start??
And BTW there is nothing like timber oil or minerals like you said in the DoD link you provided.
My take would still be central banks, iranian and golan heights oil .
Look, this is so simple, even a 5-year old can figure it out.
You need control of the eastern Russian republics.
Why?
Because they have 10x-14x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, plus coal, timber, metal ores and non-metallic minerals.
To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of the Five Central Asian States, so that you can funnel money, weapons, equipment and supplies to "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics.
Think of "Arab Spring" only different.
The people who live in eastern Russia are mostly Turkic and Turko-Mongol groups, plus indigenous groups akin to our so-called "Native Americans."
The US also needs control of the Five Central Asian States, since they have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than the entire Middle East and North Africa, but no so much coal or timber, but lots of metal ores and non-metallic minerals, especially Rare Earth metals and minerals.
To get control of the Five Central Asian States, the US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered unlimited air, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean Region, and a base from which it can push its hegemony on the Five Central Asian States.
To get control of Iran, the US needs control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Check those two off the bucket-list.
When the US decided it was necessary to ensure the future economic prosperity of the US.
Those aren't my words, those are your government's words:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
If Eastern european countries were the target why werent they taken over from 1991 to 2000 when Russia was in its most
vulnerable state in her history???
Why did it take 30 years to go through gulf war, afghan war , iraq war and an iran war which wouldnt even start??
And BTW there is nothing like timber oil or minerals like you said in the DoD link you provided. So either you are hiding their true intentions or
Ummmm... Eastern European countries aren't the target. Eastern Russian Republics are the target and Caucasuses (I guess he means countries like Azerbaidschan, Kazhakstan, etc.).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
