Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-East

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby airstrip1 » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 20:12:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'E')urope is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Islam.


The words 'Europe' and 'peaceful' hardly belong in the same sentence. Too many people assume that the last fifty years is a typical period in the history of the Continent.
User avatar
airstrip1
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 20:49:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'E')urope is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Islam.


The words 'Europe' and 'peaceful' hardly belong in the same sentence. Too many people assume that the last fifty years is a typical period in the history of the Continent.


Well they deserve alot of credit for trying to change things, especially the Germans and the French. Remember, though, it was a shotgun wedding. The shotgun is basically gone now and for the moment, things are still fine. But I question their ability to maintain unity when the going gets tough. In 1917 Oswald Spengler predicted that pacifism and a declining birth rate would ruin Europe. It's looking more and more like he had the right take.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby RdSnt » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 21:09:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'R')dSnt,

There are a few things that really puzzle me about the way that the Neo-Cons have prosecuted this whole Iraq thing. First of all, why didn't they use a proxy instead of so totally placing the geo-political future of the US on the line? If a proxy had failed then the US could simply have withdrawn support when things got too dicey. As it stands now, if a proxy had managed to get this far the US would be able to claim total victory and risk nothing more.

I reckon the only proxy they wanted to back was the only proxy they couldn't back. I think they wanted to back the Iraqi Sunnis, the natural ally to the US's non-Jewish state best friend in the region - Saudi Arabia. They were prevented from engaging the Sunnis, however, until Saddam could be gotten out of the picture. Who can say for sure, but if I am right there will be some changes in Iraq politically and civil war wise after Saddam is executed.

Secondly, why haven't the Republicans launched a massive effort over here to counter possible failure? Yes, they are in the process of decapitating the dollar, but that by itself isn't enough. There needs to be a major infrastructure shakeup that involves high-speed rail, higher fleet fuel efficiency, many billions on advances in electricity generation and solar panel efficiency to name only a few. Two billion over some number of years for hydrogen fuel cell research just isn't going to cut it.

If the Neo-Cons took the necessary steps to prepare then a loss, even if it were calamitous, might not imperil everything. Some people read sinister motives into this lack of preparation. I read stupidity.



The easiest answer that I can come up with for the current NeoCon plans has to do with who is in charge. You need to look closely at the majority of the senior participants, they are all chickhawks. People who has assiduously avoided military service. I'm not using this term to insult be deliberately to highlight that these group of people have absolutely no hands-on experience. This is fundamentally critical to the decisions made.

They've based their entire strategy on an ideology not on facts or pragmatic necessity. You look throughout history at any regime that has directed their decisions on ideology and they have all failed badly.

As to a proxy the most obvious one should have been bring Saddam in from the cold. That was quite doable and a very practical option and Hussein would have agreed.
Once again though inexperience and ideology has gotten in the way of pragmatic action.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby gg3 » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 23:01:28

Torjus-

"spoiled soldiers"...? BULLSHIT.

A close friend of mine in the Army wrote during the holidays to let me know that a camp full of Marines he knows of, is presently subsisting on one meal a day, not enough water to drink, no clean clothes, no showers.

And a day or two ago I read a news story saying basically the same thing. Soldiers getting one cold hot-dog (that's an Americanized type of German sausage) per day to eat.

If you bothered to read the news, you'd see that our soldiers also do not have adequate body armor, do not have adequate vehicle armor, have shortages of ammunition, and so on.

And while it may be true that some of our high-tech equipment guzzles fuel (mostly diesel), the fact is that our soldiers are no more or less spoiled than your own.

Our Commander-in-Chief (President Bush) is spoiled. Not our soldiers. Put the responsibility in the right place. An apology would be nice too.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby gg3 » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 23:26:19

Daryl-

The US public may not understand geopolitics, but they can be taught.

The US public sure as hell does understand when they're being lied to, and that lesson sticks pretty deep too, especially when sons and daughters are dying as a result.

So at present we have taken down a regime that, while it was certainly one of the world's most foul dictatorships, was already militarily contained and no threat to us.

And we have replaced it with a Balkanized theocratic regime that is in bed with our sworn enemies in Iran. And we have put ourselves in a position where we cannot respond effectively to a real threat coming from a real enemy.

That is the real tragedy of this whole affair. The hard-liners in Iran have played us like a fiddle (at first via their man Chalabi and now directly), and the Bush Admin swallowed it whole. (Whether or not Clinton inhaled, at least Monica didn't swallow!)

The Administration has snatched defeat in Iraq from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan, and created a festering hornets' nest of a terrorist training camp along the way, and handed the whole thing over to our enemies on a silver platter.

It's not for nothing that General Colin Powell called the neocons "f---ing crazies." And it's not for nothing that General Odom (who was also Director of NSA) called this the biggest strategic blunder in American history.

I swear to God there ought to be a Constitutional amendment to make it possible to remove a President from his role as C-in-C on the grounds of military incompetence, and replace him with someone capable.
Last edited by gg3 on Wed 11 Jan 2006, 23:43:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby gg3 » Wed 11 Jan 2006, 23:37:33

Itch, my friend-

Those mercs are a real warrior's nightmare come true. For example...

Our soldiers are issued 30 rounds of ammo to carry on their person at all times when on base, in case of an attack against the base.

The mercs on the other hand, are issued THREE HUNDRED ROUNDS on base. Ten times the ammo, presumably to go along with ten times the pay.

(You already know this but for those who don't...) Ammo in a war zone = the measure of life or death for you and your friends.

The officers & enlisted are professionally polite to the mercs, and may even become friends under fire.

But if you want to talk about demoralization, ask any member of our armed forces how it feels to know that the mercs get 10x the ammo they do in the same situation.

Just one more example of the kind of incompetence for which Bush should be sent back to the Texas Air National Guard to complete his training, and let a real warrior like Colin Powell run the war.

(Okay, I'm now late for a PO meeting because I got caught up in this topic... me go now, see y'all later...)
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby The_Virginian » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 01:59:07

GG3,

Consider that frontline soldiers almost always get shafted, while those outside of the combat zone eat up the recources, and make the army look by by averaging the support numbers that are wheigted in their favor.


And as far as one meal a day for Soldiers far from home, I have heard the and read the same as well.

It's complete Crap that our "privatized" supply system has provided the average soldier. MRE's are annother long term eating hazzard... Men Need Nutritious food, real food.

If I was in Iraq I would be slaughtering a lot of Goats for food...
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."
User avatar
The_Virginian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 08:30:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'D')aryl-
The US public may not understand geopolitics, but they can be taught.


I agree. They should have leveled with the public. "Hey, we get all our oil from this region. We've got to secure it. There's too many crazies running around the place. We're starting with this Saddam nutcase. In the meantime, we are initiating drastic conservation measures and energy transformation initiatives at home, so that eventually we can leave." The problem is the second part doesn't sell. If you are a politician, it get's you fired. That's an observation of Kunstler's I agree with. Americans want to scapegoat the neocons because Iraq didn't turn into a quaint Jeffersonian democracy overnight. Americans need to just look in the mirror to see the real problem.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby TorrKing » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 09:18:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')orjus-

"spoiled soldiers"...? BULLSHIT.

A close friend of mine in the Army wrote during the holidays to let me know that a camp full of Marines he knows of, is presently subsisting on one meal a day, not enough water to drink, no clean clothes, no showers.

And a day or two ago I read a news story saying basically the same thing. Soldiers getting one cold hot-dog (that's an Americanized type of German sausage) per day to eat.

If you bothered to read the news, you'd see that our soldiers also do not have adequate body armor, do not have adequate vehicle armor, have shortages of ammunition, and so on.

And while it may be true that some of our high-tech equipment guzzles fuel (mostly diesel), the fact is that our soldiers are no more or less spoiled than your own.

Our Commander-in-Chief (President Bush) is spoiled. Not our soldiers. Put the responsibility in the right place. An apology would be nice too.


You are completely wrong. Our military is (in Europe) only next to the russians in requiring as little supplies as possible. Adequate equipment and food for an American soldier would be heaven for a russian soldier. I have met American soldiers and they complain if they don't get burgers or porcelain toilets in the field. And have you seen their massive PI-EXes? No apology needed, I think.

Torjus Gaaren
User avatar
TorrKing
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: The ever shrinking wilds of Norway
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 09:57:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', ' ')
You are completely wrong. Our military is (in Europe) only next to the russians in requiring as little supplies as possible. Adequate equipment and food for an American soldier would be heaven for a russian soldier. I have met American soldiers and they complain if they don't get burgers or porcelain toilets in the field. And have you seen their massive PI-EXes? No apology needed, I think.

Torjus Gaaren


My father was a career Air Force pilot. I grew up on US military bases. When I was an adult civilian living in Germany, I used to go to an Army base to play basketball. I was astonished the first time I entered the base. It was an exact replica of a US base. No local food in the grocery store, no local clothes, everything down to the ashtrays was flown in. The PX looked exactly like a PX at a large base in the States. I felt more at home on that base than I did in civilian areas of the US. Those guys had everything.

Of course, the guys in the field doing the grunt work in Iraq don't have access to those facilities. And his point about the outsourced contractors is valid. That contracting business is a giant boondoggle. Those companies are run by retired military guys. They are making a fortune getting contracts from their buddies in the Pentagon, who retire to go to work for - guess who? Right, the guys they gave the contracts to. Nothing new, though. That's the way things go down in Washington. The private sector has its own version too.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby julianj » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 10:20:37

Daryl,

Just one small disagreement:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')urope is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Muslims


:lol: :lol:

No.

The chance of the UK becoming a muslim country, are nil, nada, none whatsoever. It's extremely ahistorical to think so. I'm going to stick my neck out and say, France, Germany, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries, not on your nellie. That's just the cultures I am familiar with. The only way an EU country will turn muslim is if Turkey joins :)

:lol:

I feel I ought to give your statement a serious answer, which is that the muslims are being integrated into the existing culture. Not the other way round. Muslims in Britain are *British Muslims*, not mad jihadist caricatures. That's not to say there aren't problems, but they are just another of the waves of immigration that the UK has had over thousands of years. No biggie, actually.
julianj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 10:58:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('julianj', 'D')aryl,

Just one small disagreement:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')urope is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Muslims


:lol: :lol:

No.

The chance of the UK becoming a muslim country, are nil, nada, none whatsoever. It's extremely ahistorical to think so. I'm going to stick my neck out and say, France, Germany, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries, not on your nellie. That's just the cultures I am familiar with. The only way an EU country will turn muslim is if Turkey joins :)

:lol:

I feel I ought to give your statement a serious answer, which is that the muslims are being integrated into the existing culture. Not the other way round. Muslims in Britain are *British Muslims*, not mad jihadist caricatures. That's not to say there aren't problems, but they are just another of the waves of immigration that the UK has had over thousands of years. No biggie, actually.


OK. Point taken. I am guilty of a gross overstatement. Long term, though, the extremely low European birth rate and liberal immigration policies are a very large issue for Europe. They are large issues over here as well, but in Europe the problem is exagerrated by a number of factors. I've never been a big fan of Pat Buchanan, but I picked up his book The Death of the West. It was excellent. I would suggest you read it.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby RdSnt » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 12:10:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('julianj', 'D')aryl,

Just one small disagreement:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')urope is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Muslims


:lol: :lol:

No.

The chance of the UK becoming a muslim country, are nil, nada, none whatsoever. It's extremely ahistorical to think so. I'm going to stick my neck out and say, France, Germany, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries, not on your nellie. That's just the cultures I am familiar with. The only way an EU country will turn muslim is if Turkey joins :)

:lol:

I feel I ought to give your statement a serious answer, which is that the muslims are being integrated into the existing culture. Not the other way round. Muslims in Britain are *British Muslims*, not mad jihadist caricatures. That's not to say there aren't problems, but they are just another of the waves of immigration that the UK has had over thousands of years. No biggie, actually.


OK. Point taken. I am guilty of a gross overstatement. Long term, though, the extremely low European birth rate and liberal immigration policies are a very large issue for Europe. They are large issues over here as well, but in Europe the problem is exagerrated by a number of factors. I've never been a big fan of Pat Buchanan, but I picked up his book The Death of the West. It was excellent. I would suggest you read it.


Buchanan's base assumption though is that the invading, unclean, hordes would continue to breed like rats. That is not the case, every social group that embedds themselves in a first world economic domain stop breeding, just like us white guys.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby ALBY » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 12:19:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')every social group that embedds themselves in a first world economic domain stop breeding, just like us white guys.


:badgrin:

glad to hear it's not just my wife...

:lol:
User avatar
ALBY
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Baltimore County, Md
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby ALBY » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 12:23:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')every social group that embedds themselves in a first world economic domain stop breeding, just like us white guys.


:badgrin:

glad to hear it's not just my wife...

:lol:
User avatar
ALBY
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Baltimore County, Md
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 12:24:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')Buchanan's base assumption though is that the invading, unclean, hordes would continue to breed like rats. That is not the case, every social group that embedds themselves in a first world economic domain stop breeding, just like us white guys.


If we continue this discussion, we will be ejected to another thread, but so what.

I am pro-immigration and I think traditional Western European culture is going to have to accept transformation. However, aggressive policies have to be implemented that encourage assimiliation. This is becoming an issue with the Hispanic population in the US. Because of modern technology, the historical process of immigration and assimilation has changed dramatically. There is a risk of Balkanization, as foreign groups become countries within countries. Part of the solution is also tightening and managing immigration laws to prevent this, as well as encouraging us white guys to make more babies. What's true for the US is doubly true for Europe. I am aware that the UK has been doing a much better job assimilating their foreigners than say Germany with their Turks, or France with their Africans.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby RdSnt » Thu 12 Jan 2006, 23:43:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')Buchanan's base assumption though is that the invading, unclean, hordes would continue to breed like rats. That is not the case, every social group that embedds themselves in a first world economic domain stop breeding, just like us white guys.


If we continue this discussion, we will be ejected to another thread, but so what.

I am pro-immigration and I think traditional Western European culture is going to have to accept transformation. However, aggressive policies have to be implemented that encourage assimiliation. This is becoming an issue with the Hispanic population in the US. Because of modern technology, the historical process of immigration and assimilation has changed dramatically. There is a risk of Balkanization, as foreign groups become countries within countries. Part of the solution is also tightening and managing immigration laws to prevent this, as well as encouraging us white guys to make more babies. What's true for the US is doubly true for Europe. I am aware that the UK has been doing a much better job assimilating their foreigners than say Germany with their Turks, or France with their Africans.


You can't force assimilation nor can you mandate it through law. You provide the cultural freedom for everyone to get along and each ethnic group adopts the general social principles that make for a safe society.

Come to Toronto and see how it works. We enjoy our various cultural heritages and get along.

And why is it necessary to pay people (white people) to breed? Of what, long term, intrinsic value is there in whiteness?

The Quebec provincial government is attempting this, paying Quebec French women, to make more babies, so much a head. It's not working.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Daryl » Fri 13 Jan 2006, 00:13:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', ' ')You can't force assimilation nor can you mandate it through law. You provide the cultural freedom for everyone to get along and each ethnic group adopts the general social principles that make for a safe society.

Come to Toronto and see how it works. We enjoy our various cultural heritages and get along.

And why is it necessary to pay people (white people) to breed? Of what, long term, intrinsic value is there in whiteness?

The Quebec provincial government is attempting this, paying Quebec French women, to make more babies, so much a head. It's not working.


It's quite an overreaction to say that encouraging assimilation means forcing assimilation. There are many policies that discourage Balkanization and support the unity of society, for example, requiring that classes in the public schools be in English. Multiculturism at its extreme is as dangerous and absurd as Nazism at the other.

I worry about you guys up in Canada. I spent alot of time in Toronto and worked for a Canadian company for several years. You guys already have a severe identity problem and you need more spine. The Canadian company I worked for - it was one of the big 3 banks - my department was being run by two completely incompetent foreigners, a totally obnoxious Londoner and New Yorker who had bullied all the Canadians out of their way. It was sad to watch. I worry that one day the mullahs are going to move in and put you guys under Sharia law.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby Teclo » Fri 13 Jan 2006, 10:16:27

No-one I know in UK wants to be ruled by anyone but a western thinking person, someone who is british in the sense they are in touch with our culture here and our identity. Our politicio's probably miss the mark on this but they at least do believe they represent this. Unlike the US we leave what being british is to the imagination, this I put down to our resolve not to be conquered. If we don't let anyone define us we define ourselves. Anyway, its true growing cultural groups with their own identify are a problem
Those that integrate and compromise can exist in relative harmony
But any that don't manage this, with high birth rates and strong identity wiill clash
Right wing claptrap about our low birth rates isn't the answer. What w'ere supposed to out-breed them, in an over populated world? Nuts
I think we're headed to a stable, non-growing population that’s comfortable with itself, doesn't need to multiply to justify its existence. Economy, immigration need to be adjusted to suit this. Maybe even limits to population growth that apply to all cultural groups. This would kill the paranoia & fear that we all have when this stuff is left to chance and competition, the extreme right play on this not try to fix the problems, they make it worse always (as does extreme left). Common sense is all we need
teclo
User avatar
Teclo
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat 29 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: What Would be the Impact of a US Military Loss in Mid-Ea

Unread postby zoidberg » Mon 16 Jan 2006, 22:49:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'O')kay, evrybody is saying that can't happen. The US has all of this superior weaponry. It has this tremendous nuclear umbrella. It has an incredible industrial capability. And never mind its ability to carry out logistical support.

So, the question is not how per se, except that how might actually play a role in what comes after, but what will be the consequences if the US is defeated?

There are probably two scenarios by which this could take place. The first is nuclear defeat. That involves a lot of nukes being thrown around in retaliation, doesn't it?

The second is probably the scariest for the Ameri-jingos. What if the US is defeated conventionally? Again, forget whether this is possible, except that how might have a bearing on what comes after. How might be a terrible strategic blunder on the battlefield or betrayal by an ally that leads to a weakness that is exploited by the enemy to success, see it can happen. Talk about what it would mean should it happen.


Well lets say Israel launches air and missle strikes to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran responds by launching a co-ordinated offensive with the biggest Shi-ite militias and the Sunni insurgency and attacks every American base(kinda like Tet I guess). We can assume some of the millions of Shiite pilgrims are Iranian military as well, and join in the attack, supporting it with good weapons. Simulataneously Iran throws its most mobile units to attack key American positions in Iraq. Some might fall(Especially if the US sends some planes to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities as well). Many others would be stranded, except for air. (Which may be easier to cut than you'd think. Big cargo planes must present quite a target with good AA missles). American troops must be fairly well dispersed in dealing with the insurgency. Thousands could die, many thousands wounded and captured.

At this point America may recover enough to push Iran out of Iraq, but maybe not if they lose an aircraft carrier in the straits of Hormuz. This unambiguous defeat would certainly spell the end of the Bush Adminstration - the next guy to be elected would certainly be the guy promising to rescue America from this defeat.(ie someone scary). A large loss of American prestige and diplomatic clout would follow, but America's been losing that anyways. America may abandon some of her more far flung outposts and signal that any attempt to capitalize on her defeat will result in nuclear retaliation. (Again not a terribly new idea.)

All in all, nothing terribly dramatic. After all its not like America lost control of Texas or something. But nonsense about "indispensible nation" and champion of freedom crap would stop. America would step down a touch and take her place among the world's nations. Not sitting ontop of them.

And of course the US would blow up everything in the middle east, barring nuclear weapons. It may also be assumed hundreds of thousands of civilians would die, as any humanitarian pretense would evaporate in a serious struggle.
User avatar
zoidberg
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed 23 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Center of north america
Top

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests

cron