Nuclear War against Iran
- 03-08-2006, 08:52 AM
Nuclear War against Iran
Could this be the beginning of WW111?
- 03-08-2006, 04:28 PM
WW3? Only if everyone fights eachother over the gas that was coming out of the country.
time to get those subsidized farms growing corn for biodiesel
- 03-09-2006, 11:19 AM
we should all wear special bags that will gather our own gas we make.. then we can hand turn that to power our cars etc... so yeah?
03-13-2006, 09:37 PM
No. Personally, I'm convinced World War 3 will begin in and about North Korea. World War 3 will be between China and the US.
03-13-2006, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by The Experiment
I can't beleive US and China will ever go to war with each other. Too much at stake in terms of economy.
And also i doubt there will ever be a full scale nuclear war...both countries would be scared of getting f**** up (M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction)
03-14-2006, 02:28 AM
China has enough petrol reserve for a couple of weeks. It has no viable blue water navy. The peerless US Navy can easily close off the South East Asia sealane choke points. No oil coming in, and the commies would not last 2 weeks!! They may have to take their bikes to go get their nukes. And we have 50-100X more nukes then they have. On top of that, we have Aegies Theater Anti Missile systems off the coast of North Korea. We can swap their nukes back down to rain on their heads.
The Commies are not dummies. Despite the hot air they love to pump regularly, the politburo is not keen on picking a fight with the US anytime soon. They know they have no chance whatsoever. They are outclassed in every way. If they went for the nuclear option, that would be the end of the Middle Kingdom.
03-14-2006, 01:39 PM
Well, China said they'll try to prevent a war on Iran so if you mess with Iran, you mess with China.
Kim Jong-Il and his dynasty will lead to problems. If North Korea goes away, the US will back South Korea to make Korea. China will want to claim North Korea for themselves because of the minerals there.
In my opinion, thats why its best we try to appease Iran and North Korea. We need to calm down our bloodlust and start thinking of viable solutions because war is not one of them.
03-14-2006, 02:10 PM
Let's see if I can remember my history , Chamberlain appeased Hilter and gave him part of Europe and that only encouraged him to go further as this was perceived as acts of weakness.. I am under the impression the FANATICS in Iran ,and the lunatic in North Korea.. are in the same category .. I mean if they do to their own people BARBARIC acts .. do you think they would hesitate for a minute on unleashing anything horrific on other innocent people on this planet .. these goverments cannot be appeased..
03-14-2006, 02:30 PM
It's only a matter of time..... We will be the United States Of Europe.... The US Dollar is declining and the US economy will crash and Europe will pick up the pieces...... That's going to happen if we start another war..... We can't borrow much more money than we already have..... If this all happens, it will be felt around the world..... Then again, what the hell do I know.
03-14-2006, 06:07 PM
North Korea can definitely be appeased. Just give them food and they'll calm down.
Its not a matter of appeasement really as it is not having the same elbow room as past wars. A lot has changed since last century. The US is so deep in debt that we can't afford to piss off nations like Japan, Saudi Arabia, China, or any serious lenders.
The US just can't storm into other nations just because. Iraq has basically ruined that from ever happening again.
So the best solution is to appease and settle these rogue nations down until the US can repay debt or international consensus is to attack these nations.
03-14-2006, 09:42 PM
The US is so deep in debt that we can't afford to piss off nations like Japan, Saudi Arabia, China, or any serious lenders.
see no that isn't true. tho we are in debt. these nations economies would bust if we stopped. our debt is what keeps them alive. and even then, the aspect of "debt" is shady to some economists
03-14-2006, 11:38 PM
Well, this one-world economy as you propose regularly would jeopardize the US's position. More and more countries are using the Euro for their finances, mostly due to its stability.Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
The bottom line is that its dangerous for the US to be ****ing around in either North Korea or Iran. They're hated by everyone but they're backed by powerful nations, nations that we're deep in debt with.
Thats why I'm convinced war with Iran and North Korea is impossible, unless the US wants to commit financial suicide. If action is to be taken on these nations, it would have to be started by someone else.
03-15-2006, 08:19 AM
I agree with that, we cannot go it alone anymore .. the other ** allies ** need to step up and help shoulder the burden of controlling these maniacs.. The gulf countries are extremley nervous about the prospect of Iran having nukes.. Iran could blackmail them into helping their cause.. North Korea is cause for concern, but they are located so far far away as to have no impact on world economies.. But don't think for a minute they would not hesitate to give terrorists a nuke device ,or Iran for that matter.. If a nuclear device would be dentonated in a city in Europe or US .. If those countries can trace that back to the state sponsors .. We would see that country hit with a designated nuke strike also ... The scenario could quickly escalate out of control.. Israel everyone knows has nukes ..if they are attacked by Iran with one.. they would hit back double that.. the Mideast would go up in flames after that.. very scarey scenarios either way..
03-15-2006, 09:04 AM
Thanks for the link, but that website seems to have alot of conspiracy and speculation as its base. If we do end up going to war with Iran, it won't be for a while. And I don't think it will involve nuclear weapons.
03-15-2006, 09:32 AM
your points are valid But the reality of the situations are in the heads of these states. Yes, if the united states went in a lone to either nations ( which as we see via UN support is not that case) and conducted an operation that the world and the people of these nations are against .. would be taking a gun to our head.. killing us for a good 6 years. You can keep North Korea's government calm. Just let them yell once and a while and feed them some rice. But Iran's new leader is not stable.. Not even stable enough for those that live around him. And his own people are losing their taste of him. It is why dubai and the rest of the UAE has given us even better military access to Iran. The world, and its economy, does not feel safe with these people in any sort of power.. I think we will find that the only "friends" that these nations sort of have IE Russia, China, will wish to save their voices for a cause that would be better for them. They all know that they will be able to get a better cut of the pie here if they go along with the rest of the world.... and if they fight us in the process, they get nothing. It just isn't good buisness at this point....
EDIT: and for what it is worth. I think that right now we are in WWIII
03-15-2006, 10:42 AM
03-15-2006, 11:08 AM
Does anyone remember on 9/11 the feeling when you were looking at the live feeds and thinking this can't be happening to us.. Nuke weapons in these lunatics hands would make that look miniscule.. You are talking about people that turn themselves into human bombs and chop peoples friggin heads off.. This is a scarey age we are heading into ..
03-15-2006, 12:49 PM
I agree. Europe, namely France and Germany, needs to start stepping up. I think the US, Europe, Australia, South Korea, and Japan are powerful enough to contain Iran, Russia, and China. However it seems like only the US, UK, and Australia are willing to step up. France might. Germany has been a silent ally in the war in Iraq (based on new reports) but if they make themselves more visible, it'll happen.
I don't think we need to deal with North Korea in a war. We should feed them. By feeding them, their people will be able to become stronger. The US and South Korea are doing a joint venture called Radio Free Asia. Many North Koreans own a radio. RFA is meant to tell the truth on the world. With well fed people, they will in time start rebelling against Kim Jong-il. The government hates Kim Jong-il so getting rid of him will be easy. The nation will still be Communist but I guarantee you the next ruler will not be a total ass and start bringing up the standards of Human rights in NK.
Thats another good point about Iran. I think we should start funding the secular factions of Iran. Make deals with them, like we give them some financial aid once they're in power. Overthrow the radical Islam and then there won't be constant bullying of Israel. The only nation that would be evil would be Syria. The Hamas party is backed by Iran and Syria. So without Iranian aid, Palestinian extremists will be reduced.
This is what I mean by appeasement. I don't think war is an option because it just gives these ****s a reason to live.
03-15-2006, 01:02 PM
Europe is doing a good job thus far. Even France is on board with us here on this... I have a good feeling this will be dealt with, with out any sort of STRONG introduction of military power... but.. if anyone strikes first.. or has a right to.. its israel.. i can see some missles going into their plants etc.. then everyone getting all bent out of shape.. a few hundred people blow themselves up.. then israel takes back all "their" land.. do a lil detention like we did to the japanese back in WW2.. yada yada yada, blamo boomo I am elected king of the Whicker People
03-15-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
03-15-2006, 03:23 PM
yeah you laugh now.. you'll see.. YOU WILL ALL SEE!
ps.. free chairs for everyone that supports AM
03-15-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by raider1
Equally, does anymone remember Gitmo, Abu Grahib, kidnappng and killing innocents and all the US politcal invasions, arming Cocaine dealers in Nicaragua to overthrow legit governments, US use of WMD's to kill innocents in illegal war on Iraq, and lnteference over history.
9/11 - It's a wonder it didn't happen earlier - the world is sick of US inteference.
Alleged US-backed establishment of François Duvalier as dictator of Haiti. 
Alleged CIA assassination of Congo's democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba.    Removed Congo since it has been debunked. CIA involvement in plans to kill him has been long established by senate hearings and declassified documents.  
Korean War from 1950 until 1953: After communist North Koreans invade South Korea, the UN, with every nation voting "yea" except for Yugoslavia that abstained, approves military support for South Korea, involving over a dozen countries including the US.
US support of Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq in 1963; support for dictator Saddam Hussein until 1990. 
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic. 
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador in 1963.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in 1965, resulting in estimated death of one million suspected Communists. 
Alleged CIA-backed military coup brings dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to power in the Congo in 1965.
Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece in 1967.
American support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War / American support for Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1982 Lebanon War.
U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem (1963). 
CIA-orchestrated assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, the US-backed ruler of the Dominican Republic , in 1961     
CIA Involvement in the Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico, 1968 
CIA covert support for the election of Eduardo Frei Montalva of Chile in 1964. 
1961: CIA involvement in the assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, their former ally in the Dominican Republic.  
1962: Alleged CIA involvement in overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic. 
1963: Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of José María Velasco Ibarra and after of Carlos Julio Arosemana, both presidents of Ecuador. 
1963-64: CIA involvement in riots and violence in order to undermine the Marxist People's Progressive Party and its leader, Cheddi Jagan.
1964: Alleged involvement in riots and violence that brought down the government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana. 
1965: Dominican Republic military officers revolted against the junta to try to restore Juan Bosch, whereupon U.S. President Lyndon Johnson sent 20,000 U.S. troops to defeat the revolt so to avoid "another Cuba."
1965: Alleged CIA-backed military coup against Patrice Lumumba that brings dictator Joseph Mobutu to power in the Congo.
1966: Alleged CIA support to military coup against Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah.
1967: Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece.
Alleged CIA-supported coup against Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and installation of puppet Lon Nol in Cambodia in 1970. 
Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan Torres of Bolivia in 1971.
American support for Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War
CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
Following overthrow of the dictator Samosa in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, the CIA supports the Contras from 1979 - 1989. Nicaragua still has not received the U.S. restitutions for military and paramilitary activities as ruled by the International Court of Justice and as supported by a United Nations General Assembly resolution. 
An alternative view was that Allende, who won only 36% of the popular vote, instituted radical policies that led to economic ruin, leading to widespread unrest and a military coup which was watched by the US.   
Political and economic intervention in Chile against president Salvador Allende; contacts with military officers planning to overthrow Allende.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno and subsequent support of Suharto in Indonesia in 1965. Former officials of the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia acknowledge supplying a list of 5,000 suspected communists -- given to them by the CIA -- to the Indonesian government and checking them off the list when those people were executed. The U.S. government also supplied 90% of Indonesia's military hardware. 
U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador (1977). 
Bombing campaigns against Cambodia; an estimated 600,000 civilians killed.
CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
Alleged corruption of 1976 Portuguese Election.
Alleged corruption of 1976 Jamaican Election.
U.S. support for Indonesian invasion and occupation of Portuguese Timor (now East Timor)(1975).
Approval of and support for the "Dirty War" military junta in Argentina. (1976-1983). 
Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan José Torres of Bolivia in 1971.
Sale of arms to Iran in Iran–Contra Affair 
Training of Nicaraguan Contras and support to repressive regimes in Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, and South America during the 1980s.
Alleged involvement in the mysterious death of Samora Machel, President of Mozambique (1986).
Support for military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala. 1982-1983. Alleged CIA support for the coup that brought him into power. 
CIA support for José Napoleón Duarte and other anti-Communist politicians alleged to have links with right-wing death squads. 
In 1989, The US establishes Support for East European Democracy to help assist Poland and Hungary's transition into market-based democracies. 
Alleged support for Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, 1980s. 
US-led sanctions against Iraq, resulting in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003.
US removal of Raoul Cedras from office in Haiti and occupation of the country, 1993 
Corruption of elections in Bulgaria in 1990 and in Albania in 1991.  
NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, 1999. Whilst the bombing was widely reported in the US as an "accident", an exposé by the London Observer showed the attack to have been deliberate.  
Alleged support for Mexico in fighting the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, 1994 and later 
Beginning in December 1989 until 1996 when the Liberian civil war ended, the United States attempted to get UN involved in negotations. The UN refused. Meanwhile, the US provided humanitarian aid, including food and developmental aid.
The FREEDOM Support Act in 1992 amends Support for East European Democracy to include the new independent states of the former Soviet Union to aid their transition into market-based democracies. 
Operation Provide Relief, a 1992 US lead humanitarian relief for Somalia. After looting of the aid, it was reorganized as Operation Restore Hope, an American military operation with the support of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid and restore order to Somalia, that eventually lead to the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. 
Operation Infinite Reach: a US cruise missile strike on terrorist bases and targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, including the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, after al Qaeda bombed two US ebassies in 1998. 
Alleged CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002.   
Alleged American support for the overthrown of the government of Haiti in 2004
CIA-backed removal of democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide from office and creation of a military dictatorship in Haiti, 1990 (See Jean-Bertrand Aristide.)  
Alleged support (along with Spain and Britain) for a failed coup plot against Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea in 2004.  
When foreign intervention is justified: Women under the Taliban
A Hemisphere of Our Own: U.S. Foreign Policy in Central America - 2 Hours Talk by Noam Chomsky at UC Berkeley - RealAudio format.
What A Wonderful World - Bowling for Columbine source material.
Funding for the conservative, pro-Western Botswana Democratic Party 
Involvement in riots and violence that brought down the government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana. 
CIA-orchestrated rebellion in China (Tibet), 1959.
Funding to the opposition presidential candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, in Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua. Chamorro won the election.
Assassinations and bombings against anti-nuclear politicians in the American colony of Palau
03-15-2006, 06:03 PM
03-15-2006, 06:29 PM
Holly crap, now wonder we are broke and most country's hate us.
03-15-2006, 06:42 PM
mindgames---I'm giving you reps purely for your passionate interest. I disagree with almost everything, but I respect you and I respect disagreement. I'm all for intelligent dialogue and conversation.
That said, my intelligent take on this topic is this:
who cares about nukes? We'll all be so rocked-up and ripped from the m-TRN/TST stack, we wouldn't even notice a nuclear strike...
(Dr. Strangelove is your friend...)
03-15-2006, 11:35 PM
nuclear war isnt good for anyone... if a modern ruler actually deployed a nuclear warhead against another country or city... then effectively the world is over.
03-16-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by milwood
Thats the nicest kick in the ass I've ever received!!!!!!!!!!! And the funniest.
03-16-2006, 09:58 AM
Ok Mindgames... why were your vacationing countrymen targeted by Muslim extremists ?? Innocent people that have nothing to do with international politics.. it's because these fanatics are looking for maximum kill effect to provoke fear worldwide.. I am not going to disagree at all that the US does some underhanded tactics. But in relation to what other countries do..lets see ..Serbia and Bosnia.. the whole of Europe stood on the sidelines and let mass murder go on w/o lifting a finger..any time there is a world catastophe.. nobody commits more resources to help than the US..then they have the balls to complain we are not doing enough...don't even begin to compare my country with what happens in other places around the world and nobody says a thing ..like rioting in the streets and burning embassies ..but that is ok , because a cartoon made them mad..
03-16-2006, 03:13 PM
The CIA has interfered with a lot of governments, namely in South America.
However to defend the CIA, slightly, when you're a superpower, you're in a role to shape the nations. Its almost required of you to do so. When the US and the Soviet Union were the only two superpowers, the two nations tried to shape their allies into capitalist or communist nations.
The same is going on. The US is trying to shape all these fundamentalist Islam nations into Western sympathizing democracies. The difference in the past and now is that there's USSR to fight against. The US is the only superpower left in the world and that breeds a lot of hatred and jealousy.
Those days don't seem to last long. By the end of the next decade, I expect China, the European Union, and the United States to become the world's superpowers. I don't think the US is going to fail, at least I hope not, but I think having two more superpowers will keep the world in check much better than just one nation alone.
03-16-2006, 03:42 PM
the US wants another super power.. we don't like be the lone one.. it is bad for buisness
03-16-2006, 04:33 PM
Ummmm, no.Originally Posted by raider1
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). As a percentage of GNP, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.
03-16-2006, 08:41 PM
foreign-aid is down because we have this lil war thing going on ;-). When the cycle goes back to having a dove republican or a democrat in office .. those numbers will change. as it usually does.. but the other side of the coin is that most of the time.. aid is worthless to nations that wish to grow... when you just give people money.. they have no drive to go out and better themselves... also.. we had watched billions of dollars of aid stolen.. so as a tax payer, i would rather my nation pick and choose where my money goes
03-18-2006, 02:19 AM
China don't give a raging f@#k about the Iranians so as to confront the US Navy. They can't prevent sh1t. lol Right now, they can't even hop over the Taiwan Strait to take Taiwan. lolOriginally Posted by The Experiment
China is going to implode first, long before it ever becomes a superpower. The Chinese economy is running on insane economic policies that have encouraged a massive building binge of production capacity. There is a waste land of over capacity. The chicken is coming home to roost.
NK is in a long downward spiral of wholesale collapse. The South Korea is not worried over an invasion of North Korean military. However, they are scared to death over an invasion of North Korean refugees after the collapse. South Korean has been building a large bureacracy of civilian adminstrators, tasked to move into North Korea, to run the country, after the Kim Mafia collapse.Kim Jong-Il and his dynasty will lead to problems. If North Korea goes away, the US will back South Korea to make Korea. China will want to claim North Korea for themselves because of the minerals there.
The Chinese do not want NK to be nuclear armed. Despite the constant hot air, the NK has no functional nuke. If they had it, they would have tested it, like the way they so loved to test fire their missiles. They would want the world to know they have nukes.
The Chinese do not want NK to have nukes. B/c a nuke armed NK will simply invite SK, Japan, and even Taiwan to go nuclear. JP can go nuke in less than 6 months, if they so desired. The Chinese want only they have nukes.
Appeasement is a tried and failed strategy. No point in keep trying a failed strategy that has resulted in the murder of millions and the enslavement of millions. Appeasement is evil, as it has always resulted in the expansion and perpetuation of evil.In my opinion, thats why its best we try to appease Iran and North Korea. We need to calm down our bloodlust and start thinking of viable solutions because war is not one of them.
The only way to defeat evil, is to confront it.
03-18-2006, 02:25 AM
Not according to the Russians or the Chinese. They are not concerned that the Iranians get nukes. Their strategy is, if the crazy ayatollahs were to detonate a nuke that affect them, they would simply turn the whole Iran into a nuclear wasteland, making it an example for all the would be nuclear power. It is a ruthless strategy, but an effective one.Originally Posted by thetimbomb
03-18-2006, 11:04 PM
I'd prefer someone competent. GW has waged two wars and he's blown them both.Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
Afghanistan was tackled with too few troops allowing most of the Al Quaeda fighters (and leadership) to escape. Today, the Taliban control 25% of the country and everyone there is gearing up for a big spring offensive from the Taliban and their Al Quaeda allies.
Iraq was mismanaged in so many ways I'm too tired to list them.
Hell, we might as well just ask the Israelies to take care of the Iranian nuclear program. They always seem to win their wars.
03-19-2006, 02:16 AM
Taliban's chances of taking back Afghanistan is about the same as OJ Simpson's chance in winning the Republican nomination to be US President.
03-19-2006, 10:50 AM
I think that might just happen.Originally Posted by yeahright
03-19-2006, 12:46 PM
Well, I have friends there and they tell me things are very very bad. Coalition forces and aid workers barely leave their compounds for fear of ambush and attack. Government control barely extends outside of Kabul. Opium money is fueling a mix of drug runners, Al Quaeda and Taliban who all share a common interest in keeping the central government weak. Drug runners are paying "taxes" to the Taliban to protect them from the government/coalition forces - said taxes then being used to arm and equip more Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters. Any Afhghan who cooperates with the government faces retaliation because there are not enough troops to protect them......so like what happens in so many insurgencies, poor villagers simply support whomever is standing in their village with guns at the time, careful not to choose sides lest they be punished by the other side.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Does this sound familiar? It should. It's what happened in Vietnam to the US and what happened in Afghanistan to the Soviet Union. The Taliban don't have to victoriously storm Kabul. They just have to bleed us dry until we leave.
03-19-2006, 12:51 PM
Some points agree.. I have no idea why the hell we are letting the Opium trade grow to new levels... unless there is some sort of reason to create a better source of income then to only cut it off when they have enough...
but as for your friends there.. my friends say it is very very.. boring. They tend to spend their days playing soccer with the people in town... keeping up PR.. and then at night.. they talk on line with people like me back home. They say they some times go out and hunt in the cave systems.. but the problem is.. many innocent people live in the caves... they want to bunker bust and Daisy Cut the caves but obviously that would bad.. but it would end any and all problems.
03-19-2006, 01:25 PM
Well, in a simplified version, there are two basic dominant military theories in the US right now:Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
POWELL DOCTRINE: Formulated by Colin Powell (and other Vietnam veterans), the POWELL DOCTRINE holds that if military force is to be used, then overwhelming military force should be used so that any and all opposition is utterly crushed and that there is no space for an insurgency to mature. In short, you utterly crush the enemy, then post a soldier on every block of every street while you repair the infrastructure to show concrete improvements for the civilians. You then build up the civil society and turn the keys over to them.
RUMSFELD DOCTRINE: Championed by Donal Rumsfeld (and some modern warfare theoreticians), the Rumsfeld Doctrine holds that the training and technological superiority of American forces allow the US to launch quick penetrating strikes against enemy forces with a minimum of troops.
The first Gulf War was fought on the Powell Doctrine. 500,000 troops were used to liberate Kuwait (a tiny little country).
The Afghansistan War and the Second Gulf War were fought on the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Less than 200,000 troops were used to overthrow the Hussein government and only tens-of-thousands used in Afghanistan.
The Rumsfeld doctrine showed that an American force (superior in training and equipment) could indeed dislodge a government from power rather quickly. Of course, this was never really in doubt by most analysts. The real question is what happens afterwards.
The Rumsfeld doctrine was predicated upon two rather dubious beliefs: (1) That people nataurally want democracy and that if you just remove the dictator, that a peaceful democratic society will essentially bloom like a flower; and (2) that American forces would be "welcomed as liberators." If both of these beliefs had been true, then merely having enough forces to topple the dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been enough. We push out the bad guys and then good things would follow.
This of course is not what happened. In both cases, we toppled the existing governments, but what we then created was a power vacuum. Without enough troops to effectively control either country, bad guys, chaos and anarchy filled that power vacuum. To the average civilian. a dictator who makes sure that the water, electricity and toilets work is preferable to a "liberator" who delivers chaos. In Iraq, electricity, water supply, and oil output are all LOWER than before we invaded. This deprivation breeds resentment.
Now, I FULLY supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a just response to 9/11. In fact, I believe we should have used tactical nukes in the moutnaisn of Tora Bora when we had Osama Bin Laden and his leadership cornered there. I was vey disappointed that we fought this war on the Rumsfeld Doctrine because I (and many other people) knew that it wouldn't solve the problem. Unless you use overwheming force to crush an enemy, all you do is displace that enemy (in Afghanistan, they simply scurried over the borde rinto Pakistan), in Iraq, they blended into the civilian population.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was obvious to me that the reasons being given for the invasion didn't add up. However, if we were going to do it, we should have done it correctly. General Shinsheki said that we needed several hundred thousand troops for several years to effectievly win a war in Iraq. For this, Rumsfeld had him "retire." He of course was right and Rumsfeld was wrong.
Similar Forum Threads
- By pu12en12g in forum Controlled LabsReplies: 59Last Post: 02-27-2011, 03:22 PM
- By masterX in forum PoliticsReplies: 5Last Post: 09-25-2010, 12:18 PM
- By bigSMokey in forum PoliticsReplies: 9Last Post: 07-18-2007, 02:51 PM
- By Jayhawkk in forum PoliticsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-24-2007, 06:57 PM
- By yeahright in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 4Last Post: 06-09-2006, 11:51 AM