News Third Option For Dealing With Iran

[WarrenPlatts]

Hmmmm, advocating mass homicide (i.e. genocide) is a rather repugnant idea - not to mention exceedingly offensive and seemingly in violation of the forum guidelines.

Well, we are discussing war in this thread. I can't think of a nicer way to put it, although I wish there was. My apologies go out to all who were offended.

However, I must correct you, my friend, on one small point. Killing enemy combatants in a war to enforce UN directives does not count as mass homicide or genocide.

 

[Cyrus]

However, I must correct you, my friend, on one small point. Killing enemy combatants in a war to enforce UN directives does not count as mass homicide or genocide.

Oh, excuse me. So invading a country. Taking out its infrastructure, and packing up and leaving after you did the damage, what do you call that...liberation, freedom giving? I call that being a barbarian. There will be no war with Iran. I want to buy you a ticket to Iraq for 6 months, so you can see the difference between being in a war and reading about it in your books on your soft coutch.

 

[SOS2008]

:!)Hello Cyrus! Good to hear from you again! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments!:!)
You're probably correct that I don't know much about the Middle East, I've only been there twice for a total of 6 months. But I am an amateur student of history. The primary reason the Iraqis didn't perform well in the Iran-Iraq War is that they never achieved air superiority. Secondarily, their armored forces were based on hand-me-down T-72's from the Soviets, and the Iraqi's lacked modern command-and-control structures, not to mention that most of their forces were not highly trained.
The reason the Iranians lost 1 million troops was because the war devolved into a WWI stalemate complete with trench warfare, chemical weapons, and ill-advised human wave attacks, not to mention doing things like handing children little plastic "keys to heaven" and then using them as human mine sweepers, rather than using metal detectors.
The American military on the other hand, suffers from none of the defects plaguing the former Iraqi army. The fact that in the Gulf War the Americans did in 3 days what the Iranians could not do in 8 years of constant battle ought to give one pause. But don't worry, the Iranians will lose far fewer than 1 million troops in the upcoming war.
Why then haven't we invaded Iran for the last 30 years? Probably for the same reason we haven't invaded Cuba for the last 40 years. Mainly because we Americans are nice guys, and only do that sort of thing when absolutely necessary. Like it is now.

I know I have tried to have meaningful discourse with you, yet you remain obsessed with military obliteration, and continue to make unsubstantiated claims such as how the U.S. is the “good guy.” Aside from being offensive, it appears you only want to use this forum for venting. PF is an academic forum in which members read posts and reply to these posts with some real thought—preferably based on research effort.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You obviously have a good military mind.

Gosh, thanks for the complement SOS! And those were some interesting articles that you posted!

I wouldn't worry too much about whether oil at the New York Mercantile Exchange is traded in US dollars or Euros, however. Like the article said, OPEC doesn't have the pull that it used to. Moreover, it's likely that the dollar is too strong now. Switching to euros might be a good thing! It would make US exports cheaper, for one thing. And cheaper dollars make it easier to pay our debt. And now that there's PayPal, doing business in other currencies is no big deal anymore. Those European vacations will sure be expensive though. I guess our friends across the pond will just have to visit us instead.

I did find one part of the article you quoted to be rather disturbing: the part, of course, where William (not Wesley!) Clark made the nasty suggestion that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam switched to the euro! I hope you don't think that yours truly would ever suggest that we invade Iran over something so petty as whether a few barrels of oil should be traded in dollars or not!

 

[SOS2008]

Gosh, thanks for the complement SOS! And those were some interesting articles that you posted!
I wouldn't worry too much about whether oil at the New York Mercantile Exchange is traded in US dollars or Euros, however. Like the article said, OPEC doesn't have the pull that it used to. Moreover, it's likely that the dollar is too strong now. Switching to euros might be a good thing! It would make US exports cheaper, for one thing. And cheaper dollars make it easier to pay our debt. And now that there's PayPal, doing business in other currencies is no big deal anymore. Those European vacations will sure be expensive though. I guess our friends across the pond will just have to visit us instead.
I did find one part of the article you quoted to be rather disturbing: the part, of course, where William (not Wesley!) Clark made the nasty suggestion that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam switched to the euro! I hope you don't think that yours truly would ever suggest that we invade Iran over something so petty as whether a few barrels of oil should be traded in dollars or not!

If you go into that article you will see an extensive bibliography of writings by experts/scholars who support this position, who I am far more likely to listen to than some yahoo on a forum. And did you take any time to notice what site that information was taken from?

About the CCC

The Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC) conducts research on current and emerging security issues and conveys its findings to U.S. and Allied policy-makers and military forces. Launched by the Naval Postgraduate School's Department of National Security Affairs in 2001 and propelled by a seasoned staff with ready access to military and academic circles, the CCC is uniquely positioned to develop security research of high quality and relevance. Through aggressive outreach highlighted by our Regional Security Education Program (RSEP), the CCC ensures that its analyses benefit the makers and executers of U.S. defense policy. Active in the academy and in the field, the CCC bridges the gap between the security researcher and the warfighter to the benefit of both.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/about.asp

Would you please do likewise and provide credible sources for your assertions? Otherwise you are just trolling, and I will ignore you.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread is done. For those who couldn't post without including insults, I'm not wasting my time editing for content.