NEWS: Iran and Syria Form "Common Front"

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by The Division Bell
Isn't it strange that the BBC has changed the wording of the story from "Syria and Iran form a "common front" to "Syria and Iran against threats". What is the reasoning behind this change in titles?

'cause for some strange reason. Iran is now facing more pressure from the US, FOX just had a special about. Apparently Iran is now America's biggest threat

There is saying for that in Texas, I know its in Tennesse, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..................The point is ya can't fool me again."

Lets see if that saying holds up.


[edit on 16-2-2005 by The Division Bell]

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Middle East coalition anyone?

not likely. Iran and Iraq, at least before the invasion, were diametrically opposed. If anything, Saddam's removal will make it more likely that Iran and Iraq will form an alliance, and include Syria. However, this is the most that is likely to happen. There is too much bad blood and too much water under the bridge for a stable, coherent alliance to be formed.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by General Zapata]

Thank god that someone is willing to acknowledge history. However, Pres. Bush doesn't do that. He hasn't realized that his war on terror is a domino theory that Sen. McCarthy warned of communism doing. One nation after another, a constant conflict.

Good for Iran and Syria! and God Bless Russia for selling Syria some nice new missles! All in the spirit of cooperation and capitalism. The U.S. makes money off of selling weapons to Israel, so why not have Russia make some cash off of Syria?!

Being of Now

Originally posted by Being_of_Now
Good for Iran and Syria! and God Bless Russia for selling Syria some nice new missles! All in the spirit of cooperation and capitalism. The U.S. makes money off of selling weapons to Israel, so why not have Russia make some cash off of Syria?!

Being of Now

Before you clap too much for your comrades just remember that all this is going to do is make Dick Cheney's friends a bit richer. Russia sells missiles, Carlysle group sells missiles, our missiles blow up Syria's Russian missiles, our military orders more missiles from Cheney's friends, and Russia loses another client. If Russia really wanted to hurt America they'd go around buying up everybody else's weapons so there would be nothing for us to blow up and therefore no need to buy missiles and consequently no profit motive for wars. I think Dick Cheney would committ suicide.

Originally posted by donat

2) Syrian soldiers fought on the Coalition side during the first Gulf War, you remember; the non-profiteering, morally-objectionable, land-grabbing, apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist-led one?

How can an entire nation of educated people be so easily fooled???

What?....what land did the US grab during the first Gulf War?......

And how many countries went to that war?....was it just the US?.....

Yes, it seems some people are easily fooled by some sites....

This is excellent news, now we only have to have a pretext for military acton against one (which we already have) and we can hit em both at the same time. In addition by hitting syria so as to liberate lebannon when Iran gets involved the world community will accept us going after both and maybe the cowards in berlin and frankfurt will even get involved. (hey we need someone to wash the real solders uniforms)
So with forced in Afghanistan and Iraq we already have You know its a shame I usually like the dutch, but you make you country look badIran surrounded on two sides, once we commit troops to lebannon, at the opposiotions request we have a legitimate excuse to attack syria who will lso have us forces on two sides, and we can run straight trough syria into Iran and role up the whole islamofacist movement in one fell swoop.
Damn I cant wat for the 2008 elections, by that time Iran, Iraq, afghanistan, Syria, lebannon, and palestine will all be democratic nations and the PNAC agenda will have been proven successful.

Sorry wrong post...


[edit on 17-2-2005 by realorritt]

American ego and enthusiasm at its worst there dude. Pulling off that manouver would of been hard with a WW2 size US Army. Fact of the matter is the US Army is straining to fight the War in Iraq and keep its tentacles around Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula as well.

Short of nuking Syria and Iran its just logistically impossible. Unless the US Government dusts off the draft. In which case I'll be happy to watch people like you try and conquer that part of the World.

our military orders more missiles from Cheney's friends, and Russia loses another client. If Russia really wanted to hurt America they'd go around buying up everybody else's weapons so there would be nothing for us to blow up and therefore no need to buy missiles and consequently no profit motive for wars. I think Dick Cheney would committ suicide.

Highly unlikely that Russia can buy all those weapons. The reason Russia is selling them is because their economy is crap. A scientist makes less than a taxi driver. Also, all Carlisle has to do is make more missles....it's called supply and demand.

What?....what land did the US grab during the first Gulf War?......

Kuwait is still occupied...

So with forced in Afghanistan and Iraq we already have You know its a shame I usually like the dutch, but you make you country look badIran surrounded on two sides, once we commit troops to lebannon, at the opposiotions request we have a legitimate excuse to attack syria who will lso have us forces on two sides, and we can run straight trough syria into Iran and role up the whole islamofacist movement in one fell swoop.Damn I cant wat for the 2008 elections, by that time Iran, Iraq, afghanistan, Syria, lebannon, and palestine will all be democratic nations and the PNAC agenda will have been proven successful.

mwm1331...at what cost? This policy of a global war on terror is causing a domino affect, sort of like the Napoleonic Wars. When will the US's Waterloo come? Or even the Russian invasion that crippled both Napoleon and Hitler? Believe me I respect the president because he is the commander and chief. However i did not vote for either him or Kerry in 2004 because of their lack of a plan to end this war without another one starting. Every rougue nation doesn't have to be called out in public. I almost wish that the US would fight a secret war. Maybe that's what Cheney and the others had planned but Pres. Bush being like a little kid told everyone the secret. Look at Iraq: 6 months notice, A whole lot of WMD, And a country the size of Texas with borders to at least 4 terrorist nations......you do the math. Sometimes people need to not say anything and have people think they are stupid rather than say something and remove all doubt.

Originally posted by subz
American ego and enthusiasm at its worst there dude. Pulling off that manouver would of been hard with a WW2 size US Army. Fact of the matter is the US Army is straining to fight the War in Iraq and keep its tentacles around Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula as well.

Not exactly. The US is having a problem not because they dont have the forces, but because the forces are getting tired of being sent back and its starting to cut into recruitment. We have more than enough troops and equipment to initiate a VERY LARGE war and we could jsut tell our existing troops they are in for the duration, and we could just start up a draft after the fact to bring fresh meat in.
Syria is no challenge at all. Iran is no challenge as long as Turkey cooperates.
We can mop the floor with both of those nations and anybody else who wants to jump in- as long as we are the ones who start it (meaning we pull our ships from the gulf before the shooting starts) we can hand them their butts and suffer between 1000-10,000 casualities, even if they fight VERY well.
That's not even considering that Israel could help. Israel could walk right over Syria next week and Iran would be powerless to help, and just as Iran's war effort was getting into gear US reinforcements and maybe a handful of Israelis would be streaming into Iraq to help.

I'm not sure it's likely (the Syria-Iran situation is interesting and I'm still chewing on it, my opinion is going back and forth but settling on the idea that we will eventually hit Syria if Turkey plays ball and it will be an easy war.) but I can be almost certain that with the current balance of forces and a smart conduct by the US military, we would be more than capable of winning any hypothetical war in that region.

I have posted before on what it would take for Iran to win such a war- so don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those pro-America propaganda mongers. I just respect what my country is realistically capable of as well as knowing its limits- I don't go along with America bashers.

I appreciate some sense being brought into this situation. If you don't agree with an american policy it doesn't mean the US is bad it means that the policy is bad. BTW Anyone look into what the UN does? That's something to be condemned! Truth about United Nations

Vagabond, you forget that winning the Iraq war was the easy part. The majority of US deaths has come about during the occupation of Iraq.

I agree, flattening the Iranian Army would be a cakewalk for the US Forces but you cant win Wars by firing missiles from ships or jets. You need forces on the ground and they need to be supplied and secure whilst carrying out their objective.

What would be the point of anihilating Irans Armed forces and letting the country slip into anarchy? That would undoubtedly fuel terrorism, prusumably to levels we have not experienced to date.

There would come a point in time when after the B2's had dropped their bombs when GI Joe would have to waltz into hostile country with 70 million extremely pissed off citizens. If Iraq, a country of 25 million, can inflict well over a 1,000 US deaths in little over 1 year then you can do the simple math to see that any invasion of Iran and Syria (18 million) would drain US ground forces past breaking point before anything worthwile came from hostilities.

Probably why Bush is "consulting allies" so much at the moment. They just cant do it alone.

Also I wholeheartedly agree that its bad American policy and not the USA as a country that is bad. I firmly believe that its a travesty that such a population of liberal leaning, good citizens can be lead by such a moron. The USA needs just as much help removing Bush than Iran needs in removing its Ruling Council.

Bush does not need to be removed, the rights listed in the constitution need to be enforced is what is needed. People use the constitution for their own benefit and throw it out in other cases. Hell we haven't had a declared war since WWII! What's that about?! The issue is not about who is president. I feel that Americans need to pass a government exam before they elect any official so they can learn what goes on and who can do what. Hell we even had a Tea Tasting committee in the Dept of Interior. I don't remember that in the constitution, and yes the forefathers would have loved that but that's cause they were BRITS! America needs to be an America for Americans! The UN should have no say about other nations, the official language of the US should be the american dialect of English, and since the majority religion in America is Christianity (and the majority of that majority is Catholicism at that!) prayer should be allowed in schools if the individual wishes to say it and those who do not agree with that can just be silent during that time. America today is not based on respect of others and equality, it's equality for the minority and disrespect for the majority. Only in America does the majority not decide what goes on. Locke, Hobbes, and the other founders of modern democracy would be soooooo proud......NOT!

DISCLAIMER: This is a harsh, militant post. It is not about what is right, wrong, favorable, etc. It is only about how to hypothetically win wars.

Originally posted by subz
Vagabond, you forget that winning the Iraq war was the easy part. The majority of US deaths has come about during the occupation of Iraq.

But you are failing to account for the reason behind that difficulty. US troops are having problems because

1. We are the aggressors here and we are trying to look good by not behing heavy-handed. If Syria has it coming we can step on them and make Saddam look like Mother Teresa.

2. US Forces are having such a rough time because they are understrength. The effectiveness of forces rises exponentially because they are mutually supporting. If we'd sent 500,000+ troops we could have locked cities down and grid-searched for weapons caches, catalogued citizen IDs, and put that country on lock-down even tighter than Saddam ever did. It's not that we can't handle it- it's that our administration DIDN'T handle it because that's not what was really important to Rummy and friends.

3. The mission in Iraq is to occupy cities and bring order and build. If we stuck to the stated mission of removing the dictator, disarming the country, and killing the terrorists we wouldn't have to go into the cities and get ambushed. We could do what the Israelis do- surround them and starve them into submission when needbe without ever having to fight them on unfavorable ground.

I agree, flattening the Iranian Army would be a cakewalk for the US Forces but you cant win Wars by firing missiles from ships or jets. You need forces on the ground and they need to be supplied and secure whilst carrying out their objective.

Exactly, and that's nothing-doing for us as long as we put in a sufficiently sized force, which we do have the numbers to accomplish. The problem in Iraq is that inadequate numbers equal weak force protection for lines of supply and communication.

What would be the point of anihilating Irans Armed forces and letting the country slip into anarchy? That would undoubtedly fuel terrorism, prusumably to levels we have not experienced to date.

1. The problem in Iran is their nuclear program. To hell with their support of terrororism. Let's be realistic, we can't identify who is a radical and who isn't. We can't change their minds. We can't undo them, we can only stop them when they attempt to make attacks. Taking out the government that supports them and removing the nuclear threat is accomplishable, anarchy be danged.
2. Anarchy need not ensue. As I said above, you cut the city off from incoming supplies encircle them. Make them come out of the city to get food and water, you ID them all there and you go into the city on a search and destroy basis while the citizens are removed from it (camp them in the desert for a few days and be thorough. these aren't our friends, these are conquered enemies.) By doing this regularly you can clean house on a monthly basis if needbe to control their politics.
Remember people- Small armies have been conquering huge populations for millenia. It does work. Why did Genghis Kahn do it so well and America doesn't? Because the mongols slaughtered people who gave them trouble, and Genghis Kahn is speculated to have killed thousands, maybe more, by his own hand. People didn't even bother resisting the mongols sometimes- they'd just come out of the city bearing gifts and hoping not to get killed against all odds.

There would come a point in time when after the B2's had dropped their bombs when GI Joe would have to waltz into hostile country with 70 million extremely pissed off citizens. If Iraq, a country of 25 million, can inflict well over a 1,000 US deaths in little over 1 year then you can do the simple math to see that any invasion of Iran and Syria (18 million) would drain US ground forces past breaking point before anything worthwile came from hostilities.

I hate explaining warfare to attritionists. Not everybody is armed, not everybody is fighting, not everybody has the will or ability to fight. Last but not least, we can have our way with them without presenting them with the opportunity to engage us in a fight. Modern war is fought by manuever. Control of key strategic assetts is far more important than actually killing all of the enemy.

Probably why Bush is "consulting allies" so much at the moment. They just cant do it alone.

I have no idea why Bush is consulting allies right now, but if I had to guess it's for one of two reasons. 1. We can't economically or politically afford to fight and we don't want to. 2. Because it would just be a hell of a lot easier on us to fight this war if Turkey cooperated.
At the end of the day though, we can whip the holy crap out of these two nations and be done within a year with probably under 5,000 casualties- not a bad job really- you have to remember that war as America has become used to it recently is the exception, not the rule. And we don't have to occupy them if we don't want to. We allow nations all over the world to sit in anarchy afterall. We only intervene when we want something of theirs.

Also I wholeheartedly agree that its bad American policy and not the USA as a country that is bad. I firmly believe that its a travesty that such a population of liberal leaning, good citizens can be lead by such a moron. The USA needs just as much help removing Bush than Iran needs in removing its Ruling Council.

Foul! Nice try my friend but you're making an unfair charactarization of the US. As someone who hangs close to the middle of the road I object to those who attempt to claim that America is generally either conservative or liberal, because we quite clearly are not decidedly either.

Furthermore, the "Bush is a moron" thing misses the point entirely and cheapens the policy debate to a name calling contest which makes it very difficult for voters to base their decisions entirely on reasonable consideration of the issues. If you want to call Bush a name, call him a name that reflects your difference with him on the issues, such as a warmonger, a corporate yes-man, or a closet homosexual. I'm not saying he is these things, I'm just saying these are far more relevant and defenisble positions that the tired old "moron" charge.

Last but not least, I don't care if the US elects Bush, Kerry, or Ronald McDonald, so long as he rules by the consent of the majority, you can be sure that I and any other real American would take up arms to kill any foreigner who came over here intent on taking down our elected leader, no matter how much I may or may not disagree with that president's policy. Take your interest in American affairs and shove off- we haven't threatened to nuke you.

Syria and iran may just be the first step. Lots of scrutiny in this election in Iraq, but who is to say that Iranian supported slate may not previal in overwhelming fashion in the future. This little tidbit from the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani is interesting and may show signs of a far grander inherently more dangerous plan:

After meeting Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari, Hashemi Rafsanjani said strengthening relations between Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Islamic states in the region was of great importance, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Okdokey

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The effectiveness of forces rises exponentially because they are mutually supporting.

Well you seem to be aware of exponential forces so I wont attempt to explain any of the following, just merely state the facts.

Iraq War-
Total land area: 432,162 sq km
Population: 25,374,691
Predominant Terrain: broad plains; reedy marshes
US only deaths= 1471 in 702 days
US injured and not returned= 5725 700 days
US forces down 7196 soldiers in under 2 years in Iraq alone

Thats a considerable loss for the worlds most sophisticated army against a rebel force in a flat open landscape.

Combined Syrian & Iran War-
Total land area=1,820,050 sq km (Iran: 1.636 million sq km, Syria: 184,050 sq km)
Population: 87,035,798 (Iran: 69,018,924, Syria: 18,016,874)
Iran terrain: rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains: small, discontinuous plains along both coasts
Syria terrain: primarily semiarid and desert plateau; narrow coastal plain; mountains in west

Now consider that the operation in Iraq is not over and would probably not be over whilst a War against Syria and Iran starts. Exponential increases in difficulty surrounding a War on 3 fronts, 5x the land, 4.5x the people and mostly rugged mountainous land.

Im not saying that all 111 million people would rise up against US forces but its safe to say that about the same proportion of people would as what did in the Iraq War. Not to mention that Iran is a modern country, its not a 3rd world country by any means. It has infrastructure and is in a much better place to defend itself than Iraq was.

Now we come to that slight problem of US domestic opposition to the Iraq war. Do you agree that its safe to assume that more people would oppose another war thats roughly 5x the magnatude of the Iraq war? Any proof the US administration would give for justifying this new war would not be believed by the majority of US citizens.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least, we can have our way with them without presenting them with the opportunity to engage us in a fight. Modern war is fought by manuever. Control of key strategic assetts is far more important than actually killing all of the enemy.

Are you going to surround entire mountain ranges? Is the US military that vast as to be able to surround entire mountains and flush out an entrenched guerilla army? Have you learnt nothing from Vietnam/Afghanistan? Your fighting people on their own turf and in country where vehicles cant reach. No tanks, no hummers.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
1. The problem in Iran is their nuclear program. To hell with their support of terrororism. Let's be realistic, we can't identify who is a radical and who isn't. We can't change their minds. We can't undo them, we can only stop them when they attempt to make attacks. Taking out the government that supports them and removing the nuclear threat is accomplishable, anarchy be danged.

Ok so that could be the objective in Iran but what about the situation in Syria? Your President is demanding their withdrawl from Lebanon and to stop supporting terrorists. Thats regime change time folks and since Syria has formed a mutal front with Iran you can count Iran in that opperation as well.

Nothing will be achieved from the US attacking these 2 countries other than wholesale slaughter of mostly innocent people.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Foul! Nice try my friend but you're making an unfair charactarization of the US. As someone who hangs close to the middle of the road I object to those who attempt to claim that America is generally either conservative or liberal, because we quite clearly are not decidedly either.

Sorry Vagabond but when you look at the percentages of US citizens that believe in the rights for women to choose abortion, the amount who believe in gay rights, the amount who believe the environment is more precious than the economy, the amount who believe corporations need to be reigned in, they may not call themselves liberals but their beliefs are.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Furthermore, the "Bush is a moron" thing misses the point entirely and cheapens the policy debate to a name calling contest which makes it very difficult for voters to base their decisions entirely on reasonable consideration of the issues. If you want to call Bush a name, call him a name that reflects your difference with him on the issues, such as a warmonger, a corporate yes-man, or a closet homosexual. I'm not saying he is these things, I'm just saying these are far more relevant and defenisble positions that the tired old "moron" charge.

Well really calling him a moron was the nicest way I could put how I feel about him. How about: greedy, incompetant, negligent, fake, liar, obnoxious, embarrasing, priveleged, obscene, illegitimate and cocky?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least, I don't care if the US elects Bush, Kerry, or Ronald McDonald, so long as he rules by the consent of the majority, you can be sure that I and any other real American would take up arms to kill any foreigner who came over here intent on taking down our elected leader, no matter how much I may or may not disagree with that president's policy. Take your interest in American affairs and shove off- we haven't threatened to nuke you.

Again we come to whats good for the goose is not good for the gander. Funny how you take offence at people meddling in your internal affairs, how do you think Vietnam, South America, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq and countless others.

Sources:
US deaths in Iraq
CIA World Fact Book

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The effectiveness of forces rises exponentially because they are mutually supporting.

Well you seem to be aware of exponential forces so I wont attempt to explain any of the following, just merely state the facts.

I'm afraid you've missed a key point. Guerilla forces enjoy substantially less benefit from the "exponential efficiency" theory because they are not a fielded force. If our enemies were capable of arming, training, and fielding this guerilla force, there would be a danger.
The problem is that they can not. Iran can not deploy substantial guerilla forces to the Zagros range because they would lack the logistics to supply them outside of their normal civilian infrastructure. Iran can not move sufficient food, water, ammunition, etc into the Zagros Range to sustain a large volunteer army in addition to its regular military.

Guerillas are good for hiding out and waiting for you to show your arse. They primarily do this in cities. By controlling access/egress from major population centeres you can cut a guerilla force off at the knees before it can develop sophisticated methods for getting around your tactic.

Now consider that the operation in Iraq is not over and would probably not be over whilst a War against Syria and Iran starts. Exponential increases in difficulty surrounding a War on 3 fronts, 5x the land, 4.5x the people and mostly rugged mountainous land.

However because Iran is not able to deploy additional anti-tank munitions to all of these additional troops they do little to complicate the job of breaching passes and entering the Iranian rear area. Once that happens their supply infrastructure is destroyed and their "army", including volunteers, cease to be an effective force.

Im not saying that all 111 million people would rise up against US forces but its safe to say that about the same proportion of people would as what did in the Iraq War.

Understood, but the Iraqi insurgents are only dangerous in the cities when American troops attempt to be civil occupiers. The Iranians will be no more able to field these people in defense of their nation than the Iraqis were. All we have to do is be smart and stay out of the cities.

Now we come to that slight problem of US domestic opposition to the Iraq war. Do you agree that its safe to assume that more people would oppose another war thats roughly 5x the magnatude of the Iraq war? Any proof the US administration would give for justifying this new war would not be believed by the majority of US citizens.

That's neither here nor there. Domestic opposition can't kill troops. If the opposition is there, the war doesn't happen. If the war does happen though, no amount of opposition at home can save Syrian and Iran.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least, we can have our way with them without presenting them with the opportunity to engage us in a fight. Modern war is fought by manuever. Control of key strategic assetts is far more important than actually killing all of the enemy.

Are you going to surround entire mountain ranges? Is the US military that vast as to be able to surround entire mountains and flush out an entrenched guerilla army? Have you learnt nothing from Vietnam/Afghanistan? Your fighting people on their own turf and in country where vehicles cant reach. No tanks, no hummers.

Why fight them there? Let me reitterate that killing the enemy is secondary. When a large enemy force is entrenched in an unassailable position, you do not assault them. You take your forces to the point of critical weakness and break through, and you either attack what the enemy can not lose in order to draw him out, or you cut him off from vital resources.
Iranian forces hide in inaccessible parts of the Zagros range, American forces easily break through the Zagros chain using the under-defended more easily traversible routes. They control all routes suitable for shipment by truck, they control access to major population centers from whence all supplies for the entrenched army come, and they proceed to bomb the starving enemy until the enemy has either come down to fight on less favorable ground, surrendered, or starved to death.

Syria won't be nearly that hard. Syria doesn't have so much as a decent river in the way- it will fall faster than Iraq, and since we don't have to occupy them, only beat the crap out of their military to get them out of the way so we can access Iran, things are looking up.

Ok so that could be the objective in Iran but what about the situation in Syria? Your President is demanding their withdrawl from Lebanon and to stop supporting terrorists. Thats regime change time folks and since Syria has formed a mutal front with Iran you can count Iran in that opperation as well.

OK, here's the whole war in a nutshell if we decided to concentrate on winning instead of on making the UN happy; I'm sparing you some of the finer points.
We pull our carriers from the gulf and run into Syria via Turkey or Israel (although an amphibious/airborne capture of lebanon followed by insertion of major forces there isn't unthinkable.)
We shatter the Syrian military in about a week, clear the cities but don't occupy them, and station small forces along our lines of supply to keep them clear against any poorly armed and poorly organized rebels who attempt to come out of the cities to fight in the open.
We reach Iraq which is under attack by Iran but holding the Tigris easily. We push Iran back from the Tigris, they're lucky to get back across the border with their skins. They hide in the Zagros chain.
We punch through the Zagros on the major highways and leave substantial forces in the passes to control any avenue of attack should the Iranians try to come out of the mountains behind us. With our huge force (which we keep by declaring a state of emergency and telling everyone we are in for the duration) we control all routes of supply and all major population centers without actually having to enter the cities. The Iranians in the mountains don't get supplies anymore- only bombs. In a few months they surrender. We give a few cities the Najaf treatment then tell the UN we're leaving and they can pick up our mess or just let it sit there- we don't care.

Nothing will be achieved from the US attacking these 2 countries other than wholesale slaughter of mostly innocent people.

I'm not trying to debate the war. I'm trying to clear up some assumptions that have been made about how this war would go. I'm not talking about who is right in the war. I'm talking about who is going to be left after the war.

Sorry Vagabond but when you look at the percentages of US citizens that believe in the rights for women to choose abortion, the amount who believe in gay rights, the amount who believe the environment is more precious than the economy, the amount who believe corporations need to be reigned in, they may not call themselves liberals but their beliefs are.

1. You're misrepresenting both the nature of certain issues and popular opinion on certain issues.
2. You've selected only 3 issues from the broader scope of politics.
3. You've failed to explain why we elected Bush and voted so heavily conservative that the congress has become the legislative arm of the whitehouse.
I don't defend conservatives on all issues- I happen to disagree with them on gay marriage for example- but you make yourself look foolish when you try to classify me as a liberal for my stance on one issue and thereby marginalize an ideology which has roughly 50% of the voting population's support.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Well really calling him a moron was the nicest way I could put how I feel about him. How about: greedy, incompetant, negligent, fake, liar, obnoxious, embarrasing, priveleged, obscene, illegitimate and cocky?

Well, a few of those had some vague connection to the issues at least, although not all of them. Your second volley of unfounded slurs on the president only present the appearance, true or false, that you have only rhetoric to offer. There is plenty to criticize Bush on directly related to his policies. For example his fiscal irresponsibility raises questions about his ability to so much as balance a checkbook. But why go on with the hollow name-calling? That is precisely what stands in the way of compromise between moderate conservatives (who often aren't too fond of Bush) and liberals.

Again we come to whats good for the goose is not good for the gander. Funny how you take offence at people meddling in your internal affairs, how do you think Vietnam, South America, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq and countless others.

And again we come to me needing to remind you that I have said nothing in defense of the prospective war we are discussing. You're preaching to the choir, and in the process of doing it you said some things that are just plain wrong about military strategy and the political landscape in America.

So to summarise your posts your basically arguing that in a hypothetical all out war on Iran and Syria, Geneva conventions and morality be damned, that the USA would prevail. Well no arguments there.

But my posts are taking into account such influences as the domestic reaction to such a war and the USA fighting a War that it could sell to everyone as being just.

That's neither here nor there. Domestic opposition can't kill troops. If the opposition is there, the war doesn't happen. If the war does happen though, no amount of opposition at home can save Syrian and Iran.

You dismiss the effects of domestic opposition to this future War. Just look to history to see that domestic opposition to the Vietnam War resulted in the USA's withdrawal.

Back in the hypothetical War however your comments on Irans ability to field a guerilla army are based on as much assumption as mine. I still view their chances to move around their own country and threw American lines as being fair to good. For all the plans to protect supply lines you just cannot station troops every step of the thousands of kilometres they would wind. They will be attacked, sapped and losses will be suffered.

Iran has RPGs and mines, they are more than enough to take out transports and humvees.

The US cant totally prevent their convoys from being attacked in Iraq so its fair to assume that they wont be able to in Iran.

The US cant totally prevent insurgents from travelling around Iraq. The exodus of insurgents from Fallujah prior to the US's seige is a prime example.

Basically, even with a no holds barred War that you illustrate, I still look to Iraq to show that even with superior technology the US Army will still incur losses in magnatudes atleast 3 or 4 times what they are currently experiencing in Iraq.

Im not going to spar with the rest of your comments on the no holds barred War as your probably right. It will never happen that way anyway, thank god.

I understand your not advocating this War just illustrating its "winnable" for the US.

I was also basing my assertion that the majority of the US public is left-leaning in its values on what I read in Moore's Dude Wheres My Country. I tried finding an online version of the opinion polls he quoted in his book but I couldnt. I wasnt prepared to hunt out my copy of the book and transcribe it all either

1. You're misrepresenting both the nature of certain issues and popular opinion on certain issues.

I'd like an explanation of how I misrepresented anything there.

but you make yourself look foolish when you try to classify me as a liberal for my stance on one issue and thereby marginalize an ideology which has roughly 50% of the voting population's support.

I never even infered your a liberal. I stated that its the Bush Administrations policies that are evil and that the country on a whole is not. That was in reference to a previous post that was drawing a distinction between the US Administration and the US people. Its also not in my nature to tar a whole country with a single brush.

Also you claim he's roughly got the majority of the US voters on his side is a complete lie. Theres ample evidence that vote rigging occured in the last 2 elections.

Well, a few of those had some vague connection to the issues at least, although not all of them. Your second volley of unfounded slurs on the president only present the appearance, true or false, that you have only rhetoric to offer.

The evidence of Bush's unscrupulous dealings are available for all to see throughout all forms of media and I am not going to start listing them all here. If you want to play the sensitivity card and stop me from saying anything bad about the current "President" of the USA I will.

[edit on 18/2/05 by subz]

well if Iran and Syria join suit, other middle east states will be urged to follow in their foot steps, believe me Iran has got nukes, their loaded. the US gov't only know about 3% of the overall nukes Iran has