Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
The Iran deal...
|
Deal, not treaty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
You keep missing the point...
|
No, you keep missing the point.
Whether the intelligence was faulty or not makes no difference.
Did the intelligence provide a basis for the US to engage Iraq?
Yes.
And that is all that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Either you are not following along in this thread or you're not following the news, but the issue is not really waiting until war is actually declared but addressing the developments that increase the chances of either that or some other form of armed conflict.
|
You are not following along.
Which part of "
Geo-Political Strategy" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ1988
It will just be another failed war like we had both Bush 1 and 2.
|
There were no failures.
Did the Gulf War allow the US and Brits to maintain a military presence in Iraq until such time as further military action allowed the US to gain total control of Iraq?
It's a simple question. A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
The answer is "Yes."
The whole freaking point of the No-Fly Zone was to allow the US and Britain to maintain a military presence in Iraq until the opportunity arose to invade Iraq.
9-11 created that opportunity for you.
If you cannot wrap your brain around that, then you'll never understand that the whole freaking point of having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is so the US can maintain a military presence until it invades Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Your chess analogy, for example, is really bad.
|
No, it's spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
In chess (which I very much enjoy playing), once you loose a piece there's typically no getting it back.
|
Who cares?
That has nothing to do with anything.
You claim to know chess.
Okay, if you open with Ruy Lopez, how in the hell can you possibly change to the King's Gambit or Queen's Gambit?
If you use the English Opening, how can you possibly switch to Ruy Lopez? The Pawn is occupying the square where the Bishop is supposed to be.
That's the point. A point that was obviously lost upon you.
"You don't change horses mid-stream."
Ever heard that? Wanna know why? Because usually you and the horse end up drowning to death.
You've literally invested $TRILLIONs in this strategy. And you're going to switch to what, exactly?
You wanna go back to the Pacific Rim Strategy? That would put the US directly in conflict with China, which I would point out
is the whole freaking reason you abandoned that strategy in the first place.
China is simply not doable, and only a moron wouldn't understand that.
There are no other viable geo-strategies for the US.
This is it. You will either succeed, or you will fail, and if you fail, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
There are no such comparisons in any of these respects and more when it comes to the never-ending geopolitical seas we navigate as a country along with all the other countries trying to do the same one way or another, to more or less an extent.
|
"
All the other countries?"
What the hell people. There are only two other countries, Russia and China and China doesn't even figure into this strategy.
Get it?
Apparently, you can't understand the "geo" part of Geo-Political Strategy.
"Geo" means global in this context.
Do you seriously believe Norway has a Geo-Strategy?
Really? Norway is going to put 5 Million troops under arms? How's that work, exactly? Do you attach a rifle somewhere on an infant's diaper? Norway would have to use the elderly, infants, toddlers and small children to field an army that size.
If you can't field an army of 5 Million then you're Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Geo-Strategy.
And, it's more than just the ability to field a large army. You need money, technology and the ability to project power and hegemony.
There's only a dozen countries that might even be capable of doing that, and the majority aren't even in the game.
The other 180-odd countries? They're cannon fodder. Pawns to be sacrificed.