Showdown With Iran Imminent
Offline These idiots won't be happy until they start another war.
TEHRAN, Dec. 27, 2011 (Reuters) — Iran's first vice-president warned on Tuesday that the flow of crude will be stopped from the crucial Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if foreign sanctions are imposed on its oil exports, the country's official news agency reported.
Quote"If they (the West) impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz," IRNA quoted Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.
About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.
I've passed through the straits of Hormuz many times. If Iran tries to block it they will be sitting ducks for the American forces. Then Iran will launch missiles at Israel. Gah.
I wonder if we can convince Israel not to retaliate like we managed to do when Iraq was launching missiles at them. Regardless we'd have to attack Iran to stop the missiles or Israel will do it themselves.
These guys have to back down or they are going to get seriously messed up.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
- Login to post comments
Iran and Iraq will never be fully in line with each other. Iraq is nationalistic as much as it is Shiite. And Saudi Arabia is much more powerful and Sunni to boot. I'd worry more about Iran and Israel dragging the entire world into a war before I would worry about consolidation of power.
And Egypt and Libya I doubt want to go back to anything resembling a dictatorship.
It is a mixed bag. And as totalitarian as Iran is, they are still having a problem with technology allowing dissenters to expose their powers and they do have growing discontent.
But yea, it didn't help us wasting all that money on two wars that did nothing. China had to be loving that we were distracted by that.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Thank you Sage. Amazing how little many Americans know about their own wars. Or how badly they lost them. The US is great at lying to its people, and getting them to believe the propaganda.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yep. I have no illusions about how fucked up my country is; that's why I don't believe ANYTHING my government says. As George Carlin said "It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya."
I'm not waving my prick. I'm stating facts. If those facts upset you, then I'm sorry.
I'm not a bad ass. The American military is overwhelming to any other military force on the planet. That's a fact. I was in it for a few years, but I'm no longer in it. During that time I saw and witnessed other countries militaries, talked with other military members attached to other countries, etc.
The American Navy will devastate Iran if they are so retarded to laughably try and block that strait.
Fact.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
*grins* Apparently we are trying to redefine what win or lose means.
America doesn't lose battles or wars. We never have. And I say that as a descendent of a gaggle of half a dozen rebels that fought and lost against the U S of A.
All our dreams don't come true for whatever country we just beat the shit out of but no one ever overcomes our military force.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
You're misinformed. economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/ten-years-on-who-are-the-taliban-today/articleshow/10313980.cms
So, yeah, Afghanistan is still occupied heavily by various Al-Qaeda militant cells and possesses huge pockets of Taliban groups. Whatever you heard is just the news trying to fuck with you saying they're not a threat or that they're gone.
Sigh.
As that article points out, Taliban "cells" are at a 10 to 50 member strength and fight, for the most part, independent of each other. This means that they are fighting "very limited guerrilla attacks", which is mostly the case -- IEDs, truck and car bombs, etc.
A "brigade", by the way, is on the order of =thousands= of soldiers.
The issue with guerrilla warfare is that it is primarily terrorist in nature -- because they lack the fighting force for real force projection, they act by projecting =fear=.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
We've lost =battles=. We've never lost a =war=, however.
A key difference between the United States and Russia -- the last country to attack Afghanistan -- is that we don't go into fights like this in order to become an occupying nation. We tried to get the South Vietnamese to pick up the fight against the North Vietnamese. They chose not to, =their= country was overrun by the North. We couldn't make them want to have the kind of country they seemed to have wanted (which is B.S. -- we were fighting a war for the f*cking French ...), and =they= did the losing. Frankly, we should have stayed out and told the French to pound sand, but I've said that before.
In Afghanistan, we defeated the Taliban and the Afghanistan people have refused to pick up the fight for their own country. They'd rather have foreign nationals, waving the banner of Islamic Jihad, run their country and tell them what to do. If they don't figure out that controlling their own country is a good idea come 2014, we'll leave and they'll have an opportunity to win or lose control of their own country. That's what's happening in Iraq right now -- they have all the tools they need to join the "Community of Nations", but it's looking like the Shi'ite majority is trying to set up the Shi'ite equivalent of Saddam's Sunni dominated government.
Ah, on the wrong side of that war as well, eh?
Up until shortly before Mom died, I thought I didn't have any relatives on the winning side of that conflict, and I know I had relatives on the losing side. In Spades. She found all the documentation needed to prove she was a Daughter of the American Revolution, but when she looked more deeply into the group apparently decided against joining.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
I agree that the US is the "Big Dog" for now. Things change and power shifts to various regions and governments. For years Britain was a force to be reckoned with and their colonies stretched around the globe, right up into the 1960's when they finally relinquished their African colonies. They were true imperialists.
At its peak the Soviet Union employed "4 million active duty personnel, one hundred and forty motorized rifle and tank divisions, and the world's largest nuclear arsenal. It can also draw on trained reserves of 55 million former soldiers and officers." ( Inside The Soviet Military, Carey Schofield, 1991. ) Now the Russian military is just a shadow of its former self.
Even ancient Rome, as brutally powerful and efficient as it was, eventually lost it's grip and fell by the wayside and their empire lasted much longer than the US has been in existence. I'm sure at the peak of their power the average Roman would have laughed in contempt at the suggestion that they would lose their elite status. But it happened.
There's nothing that provides immunity from the inevitable. No nation plans on becoming weaker or ineffectual. I guess we should enjoy our superpower status while it lasts because eventually we will be supplanted. No nation maintains supremacy forever.
And really, the US military has never lost a battle ? Then how did our enemies end up capturing American soldiers ? Did our guys just whip their asses on the battlefield and then voluntarily surrender to show what good sports they were ?
And we've never lost a war ? Whatever mitigating circumstances you want to discuss ( interference from Washington politicians, the effect of anti war protestors, etc ) what resulted from our military involvement in South East Asia was not a victory. Call it a tactical retreat or whatever you'd like but we did not rid the communist influence from Viet Nam. We did pack up our toys and simply abandon them to their fate. That was not a victory and a war was not won.
Please, let me assure you I am not anti-American and if you've followed my posts you should know that I'm certainly not a Hippie. I respect your service and I even admire your bravado
but I consider myself a realist. I know I could never change your opinion that the US is utterly invincible with our awesome weapon systems but think about how f**king long we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to our involvement in WW 2. Why did it take so long to "defeat" them ?
The Shock and Awe sure didn't make much of an impression on our enemies. They just kept picking our guys off with IED's. No need for them to stand and fight, they'll just slowly bleed us to death like the Vietnamese did until we grow weary and leave.
*Rolls eyes*
You don't have to be conquered to lose a war you know.
If American confidence were the measure of its power it would be invincible. Such is not the case, however.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The problem is we don't fight to conquer anymore. To truly win a war you have to completely destroy the spirit of your enemy, including and maybe especially the civilian population. This means destroying their food sources, their means of production and basically making the lives of civilians absolute hell until the surrender and agree to disarm any combatants from the inside. For the most part the locals know who is planting IED's but they have no reason to tell us or to stop them. The terrorists will kill them and their families. If they passively let our soldiers be attacked, they get very little consequence.
Sure, the US can dominate anyone militarily for as long as we are willing to throw resources, but we never target the people actually capable of ending the war. New soldiers are born every day, they are called children. No matter how many combatants we kill, there will always be more. Soldiers are willing to die, the reality of death will never scare them into surrendering, no matter how awesome the power arrayed against them is. It is the civilians who have the power to stop the soldiers from fighting, it is them you need to make uncomfortable and have a strong desire to create a political system/force the current political system to control the soldiers. And soldiers are far more concerned for the safety of their families than they are for their own lives. Separate the civilians from their resources and they will eventually surrender. Keep killing random soldiers, and they will fight indefinitely.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I'll do my own version of eye rolling at this. Numbers does not, in any way, equate to strength. Russia holds to the same, outdated, concept of warfare from a century ago. Throw tons of people at the enemy and they will be eventually overwhelmed. I mean that's it.
If America and Russia went to war right now, and went conventional, no nukes, the Russians would bear the lionshare of the casualties. Based on numbers we'd slaughter them. But that's what Russia is known for, not giving a flying crap about any of their citizens.
As long as we are very clear that the US won every single major battle during our involvement in Vietnam. We pulled all of our fighting force out of South Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The North took over the South in April of 1975.
So we "lost" a war we weren't fighting in any more. That's how America loses wars. Whatever the people of America wills, will be done. Period. If we, as a people decide the fight is not worth it, we will withdraw, if we as a people decide it is worth it we will engage and overcome.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Yeah, we bicker amongst ourselves. Horrid isn't it? No unified voice like the USSR or China. We're like individuals or something.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Picking apart the article to better suit your views doesn't change the fact that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still going strong and, in some cases, gaining momentum. Those groups have ALWAYS been guerrilla units; just more organized than most because of their numbers. Saying "very limited" in any sense doesn't mean shit. Find a current article to discredit the one I posted first because until then, you're simply re-arranging what that article is saying to fit into your thought process.
Which battle? I'm curious.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
If America collapses it'll probably be caused by civil war -- the military and police forces will have to choose political sides. This will leave America vulnerable to external attacks, but American allies will be there for backup.
Ya the Us doesn't seem the least concerned, on account that they have a big navy and all... As if the size of the weapon matters in modern warfare.
here's the article:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpps/news/us-to-provide-uae-with-$3.48b-in-weapons-dpgonc-km-20111231_16713805
Bottom line is, that if Iran were to act on threats, a shit storm war would commence the type of the invasion of Iraq. The difference is, Iran has more political support, USA has less economical support and Iran is more determined and better prepared. Anyone that thinks this will be a piece of cake because USA has big guns is being a child about all of this. That fact is completely true and completely irrelevant.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
You're bloody bastards, the lot of you....
http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_time/Transcripts/s537916.htm
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
How could numbers not equate to strength ? They had the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and that is not a measure of their ability to inflict death and destruction ? So if they only had one ICBM aimed at the US that is no more a threat than if they had 20,000 ?
The major reason that Russia defeated the Nazis was because Russian industry was replacing their losses at a rate that overwhelmed anything that the Germans could compete with. Numbers equate to strength. If that isn't true the why bother bombing our enemies war making facilities ? Let them produce all the tanks, jets, air craft carriers, etc they can because because "number does not, in any way, equate to strength." Really ?
Are you talking "human wave" attacks ? You've got to be kidding me !
I just said that Russia is a shadow of of their former selves militarily in all aspects. Their government is fucking broke. Of course we would prevail. Their entire military infrastructure is in shambles. Yes we would win , how could we not win ? Sheesh! I bet if we attacked Brazil we could defeat them also....
You're just fucking with me now, right ?
Wow, so you accuse Russia of not caring about the lives of their soldiers ? ( they don't ) yet we threw away the lives of 58,000 American GI's because we essentially changed our mind ? After all the American manpower that was invested in ridding the communist threat from Viet Nam ( who are in control of everything, now ) we the "people" just decided "the fight is not worth it" and bailed out in 1973 ? You don't see that as simply throwing away the sacrifices of all the US military personnel who suffered and died to accomplish a goal that we later just walked away from ? I've worked with quite a few Viet Nam vets who feel like they took it up the ass on that "victory."
And again. we did not accomplish the military objective that was set before us in Viet Nam. That means that we failed.
So somehow the number of how many members are in your military affects how well your ICBM flies to your intended target?
What?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
You're referring to the CEP of their ICBM's ? ( ie, circular error probable ) .....and no, your has comparison has no meaning because there is no equivalency between troop strength and how well the guidance system of an ICBM operates. Surely you understand that ?
I think I'm a good bit older than you, so I remember the war a lot better from first-hand watching of the news
The goal, time and again, was to get the South Vietnamese army to pick up the fight. They didn't. Not only did they =not=, but there were large numbers of South Vietnamese civilians who are sympathetic to the North. That should have been the clue we needed that we had no business getting involved.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
You can't depend on outside forces or locals beyond your control or understanding in war.
And no matter the reason, a withdrawl is a loss. It means you couldn't beat the opponent, so you stopped trying. If you weren't trying to beat someone then it isn't a loss, but America doesn't do peacekeeping in my experience.
If you really must be a member of a nation who never lost a war, you're free to come to Canada. We usually only get in wars when there's no practical alternative (present administration excepted), and we've never lost. Of course, we tend more to the peacekeeping forces than invasions, which would have a lot to do with it. Pick too many fights and someone will eventually bloody your nose. But the flip side is our troops can generally trust their lives aren't being wasted.
Funny thing about the US is you're more likely to be killed by helping them than minding your own business. The first Canadian casualties in 50 odd years were at the hands of American pilots. Go figure.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.