Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[213374U]

Realistically if the US were to invade Iran, I mean really invade like Normandy or Inchon not some half measure that is done lately, the outcome is not in doubt. The Iranians will mount a fairly effective resistance I have no doubt. But by no means could they hope to defeat the invasion. A US victory is a foregone conclusion. But it will be costly for both sides. Thousands of US troops, hundreds of thousands of Iranians, most of whom will be citizens who never have or would harm anyone. And the end result will be another hostile, occupied, and ruined country with a never ending insurrection and a middle east even further destabilized.

 

Since none of that sounds appealing I'd say we take the route that leaves hundreds of thousands of people not dead.

 

To mount anything on the scale you're thinking, you'd need a fully mobilized economy, which the US currently lacks. We haven't gone full Orwell yet. I'm sure China would love for the American economy to become fully geared for war, so as to give them an even bigger slice of the global trade pie.

 

So realistically, what you can expect is Iraq Redux with another several thousand starry-eyed young American men coming back home in body bags or horribly maimed, another relatively prosperous country destroyed but far from subjugated, and the doomsday clock running ever closer to midnight as the russkies become more and more paranoid at the inexorable advance of the Freedom Tide.

 

It's just a matter of time, too. Make your bets, gentlemen.

[Gfted1]

Maybe we would finally get that free oil pipeline directly to my local gas station.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, invading Iran solo is going to work out so well for the US.

 

Ah, wait forgot they can count on Israel - though wonder how much the IDF could spare for any invasion.

 

Most likely Israel would be busy invading Lebanon and Syria, and the US will have the 'help' of Saudi etc instead unless they get them to go draw an F15 in the corner while the adults are working. Six months later we'll get "who would have thought international relations were this complicated?"

 

It certainly doesn't help that the only time the US media as a whole ever gets behind Trump is when he's firing missiles at people. The preference for stupid 'strength' over nuanced sense isn't just from Trump.

[injurai]

The US should declare war against it's aging infrastructure.

[Malcador]

 

Yeah, invading Iran solo is going to work out so well for the US.

 

Ah, wait forgot they can count on Israel - though wonder how much the IDF could spare for any invasion.

Most likely Israel would be busy invading Lebanon and Syria, and the US will have the 'help' of Saudi etc instead unless they get them to go draw an F15 in the corner while the adults are working. Six months later we'll get "who would have thought international relations were this complicated?"

 

It certainly doesn't help that the only time the US media as a whole ever gets behind Trump is when he's firing missiles at people. The preference for stupid 'strength' over nuanced sense isn't just from Trump.

Israel trying both would be a disaster, I would wager, as well. Heck even one.

[Guard Dog]

The US should declare war against it's aging infrastructure.

You should take that up with your State governments. Most of that is on them.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Yeah, invading Iran solo is going to work out so well for the US.

 

Ah, wait forgot they can count on Israel - though wonder how much the IDF could spare for any invasion.

Most likely Israel would be busy invading Lebanon and Syria, and the US will have the 'help' of Saudi etc instead unless they get them to go draw an F15 in the corner while the adults are working. Six months later we'll get "who would have thought international relations were this complicated?"

 

It certainly doesn't help that the only time the US media as a whole ever gets behind Trump is when he's firing missiles at people. The preference for stupid 'strength' over nuanced sense isn't just from Trump.

Israel trying both would be a disaster, I would wager, as well. Heck even one.

 

 

Israel would 'win' even against both, but very much with the air quotes. Their main aim would almost certainly be to restart/ exacerbate the civil wars there to get their enemies fighting each other rather than doing prolonged fighting themselves. They might achieve it, but it seems unlikely since the single unifying strand in Syria and Lebanon is hatred of Israel, so anyone helping them will be viewed as a traitor. Plus there's the question of what Russia would do under such circumstances, and while Putin seems OK with some limited strikes by Israel he's temperamentally unlikely to back down if Israel tries more than that.

 

Fundamentally though, any invasion of Iran will result in their proxies fighting whatever 'coalition' is scraped together throughout Lebanon to Iran, and that practically means that Iraq, Syria and Lebanon become involved whatever anyone wants; and that will involve Israel either invading pre-emptively or being dragged in.

[Orogun01]

 

 

Yeah, invading Iran solo is going to work out so well for the US.

 

Ah, wait forgot they can count on Israel - though wonder how much the IDF could spare for any invasion.

Most likely Israel would be busy invading Lebanon and Syria, and the US will have the 'help' of Saudi etc instead unless they get them to go draw an F15 in the corner while the adults are working. Six months later we'll get "who would have thought international relations were this complicated?"

 

It certainly doesn't help that the only time the US media as a whole ever gets behind Trump is when he's firing missiles at people. The preference for stupid 'strength' over nuanced sense isn't just from Trump.

Israel trying both would be a disaster, I would wager, as well. Heck even one.

 

....You guys do realize that we fight Israel wars instead of themselves?

[Agiel]

As Jared and Ivanka were headlining the US Embassy's move to Jerusalem:

 

55 dead in Gaza protests as Israel fetes US Embassy move

Edited May 15, 2018 by Agiel

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Yeah, invading Iran solo is going to work out so well for the US.

 

Ah, wait forgot they can count on Israel - though wonder how much the IDF could spare for any invasion.

Most likely Israel would be busy invading Lebanon and Syria, and the US will have the 'help' of Saudi etc instead unless they get them to go draw an F15 in the corner while the adults are working. Six months later we'll get "who would have thought international relations were this complicated?"

 

It certainly doesn't help that the only time the US media as a whole ever gets behind Trump is when he's firing missiles at people. The preference for stupid 'strength' over nuanced sense isn't just from Trump.

Israel trying both would be a disaster, I would wager, as well. Heck even one.

 

 

Israel would 'win' even against both, but very much with the air quotes. Their main aim would almost certainly be to restart/ exacerbate the civil wars there to get their enemies fighting each other rather than doing prolonged fighting themselves. They might achieve it, but it seems unlikely since the single unifying strand in Syria and Lebanon is hatred of Israel, so anyone helping them will be viewed as a traitor. Plus there's the question of what Russia would do under such circumstances, and while Putin seems OK with some limited strikes by Israel he's temperamentally unlikely to back down if Israel tries more than that.

 

Fundamentally though, any invasion of Iran will result in their proxies fighting whatever 'coalition' is scraped together throughout Lebanon to Iran, and that practically means that Iraq, Syria and Lebanon become involved whatever anyone wants; and that will involve Israel either invading pre-emptively or being dragged in.

 

 

Fair enough, was thinking their aim would be something more than setting fire to the neighbour's houses. I had thought the aim would be to crush Hezbollah, which I doubt they can do without getting stuck in one messy and expensive conflict their public would tire of.   Maybe I'm underestimating the IDF, though.   Good thing I am not a head of a foreign office

[HoonDing]

As Jared and Ivanka were headlining the US Embassy's move to Jerusalem:

 

55 dead in Gaza protests as Israel fetes US Embassy move

Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!

[Katphood]

As Jared and Ivanka were headlining the US Embassy's move to Jerusalem:

 

55 dead in Gaza protests as Israel fetes US Embassy move

 

Terrifying.

 

I have never been a supporter of the Palestinian or the Israeli cause but that is just barbarism.

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Katphood

[Chilloutman]

 

As Jared and Ivanka were headlining the US Embassy's move to Jerusalem:

 

55 dead in Gaza protests as Israel fetes US Embassy move

 

Terrifying.

 

I have never been a supporter of the Palestinian or the Israeli cause but that is just barbarism.

 

 

 

Totaly agree, calling throwing rocks and molotovs on neighbour country and then having odacity to call it protesting is little too much. Starting war, losing it and that complaining that winner holds some of your territory illegal occupation is just rich

[Guard Dog]

Meh, don't care anymore. There is barbarism enough to go around in the middle east. I say we wash our hands of it and turn our backs on it. Civil wars, terrorism, Return to Zion, jihad, protests, embassies, West Bank, Gaza, houses, rockets, rocks, it's just enough already. They have been trying to make peace there for 50 years. Concessions offered and rejected. Deals made and broken. It's a fools errand. If you put a Sunni, a Shia, and a Jew in a room together and told each the other two was the last of their kind they would probably all fight to the death. I'd say give every man, woman, and teenager in the ME a rifle with three full magazines and a box of grenades and tell them to do what you think is best. Make peace, don't make peace, whatever. It's past time to be done with the whole lot of them.

 

Civil war in Syria? Nukes in Iran, Saudi Arabia funding terror? Screw them all. You cannot stop any of it and you shouldn't try. Just let it be known that if you use nukes you will be attacked with nukes. Fire one off at Tel Aviv and the US, UK, & France will exterminate your entire population. Still want them? Go ahead and make them. Enjoy the expensive upkeep of weapons you dare not use.

 

Most of the problems in the world today stem from the powers in Europe reorganizing the world to suit their ends after WW1 and WW2 (to a lesser extent). The only thing that ever held artificial countries like Iraq together was violence. First the British, then the Baathists with a few in between. Take away the violence and all these groups who hate each other start fighting each other. What a shock. It's best to just let them sort it out. Had the US never invaded Iraq ISIS would still be just a figure from Egyptian mythology and Syria would not be in the mess it's in. There was nothing to like about Hussien but a whole lot of people would still be alive and whole today today if he were.

 

But it's a lesson we are incapable of learning because here we all go interfering again. Last year US combat troops were killed in Niger. When did we declare war on Niger? Oh they were hunting terrorists? Right, don't let the public forget to be afraid of that hobgoblin. Injurai was right. Past time we worried about our own s--t and left everyone else to theirs. Don't send arms, don't send aid. None of it ever gets into the hands of the people who need it anyway. Besides, there and thousands of charity groups already doing that and doing a better job of it.

 

Just my $.02

[Drowsy Emperor]

Invading Iran is not feasible, in practical terms, for the U.S.

 

Contending with the Iranians would be a feat in itself, but even more so when Russia and China start flooding them with latest generation of ballistic missiles and assorted weaponry. And you better believe they would, with a hostile army drawing so close to their spheres of interest all bets that apply in a country of middling importance such as Syria, would be off. And when a Russian or Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile tanks a U.S. aircraft carrier, drowning most of its crew and destroying it's air assets, what then? Declare war on Russia or China?

 

There's no doubt that one of Washington's wet dreams is to see Iran in flames and a new Shah type government in it, but that's not on the cards soon. If they didn't do it back in the post-Cold War drunk-with-power late 90's early 00's era, they're not doing it now.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[Chilloutman]

I don't think anyone want to invade anything by now

[smjjames]

I don't think anyone want to invade anything by now

 

Except John Bolton apparently, and maybe the audience where he was speaking at.

 

Anyways, while I can see spec-ops happening onshore in Iran or occupying islands used as military bases, a full on invasion or even a half measure would be a worse idea than Vietnam.

Edited May 15, 2018 by smjjames

[Amentep]

Thread longish. See new thread.