|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 05 2016 11:30 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:09 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2016 11:05 TanGeng wrote:On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east. Iran wasn't chooped us as much as the rest of the middle east by the british and is largly an persian-shia country with a rather domesticated kurdish and azerbarjani minorities. Shia is true. Persian is only 55% of the population. While Iranian nationalism is the dominant social force now, it doesn't preclude such ethnic differences from bubbling up if there is another round of revolutions. Kurdish ethnic nationalism may very well uncork similar sentiments in other segments of the population. You have the major two minorities, Azari and Kurds. There's a large number of Lors, the Bakhtiari. There's Arabs in the gulf, Turkmen up north. Balochs in Bolochistan in the south. A series of ethnicities along the Caspian Sea.
Say you trigger all of that somehow and make an unrealistic cheap war with Iran that only costs 1 trillion USD, 10 000 US deaths and then you win. What happens next that is good for the US? You make Pakistan worried about a potential conflict so they make more nuclear weapons and sell a portion of them to finance it? You make other nations globally worried about US invasions and thus cut all military cooperation since that is a platform for spying in future wars? Driving Turkmenistan to Russia?
Where are the upsides?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing",
I'm glad you have such deep, insightful sources supporting your own point.
Most other estimates I've seen from so called "reliable" sources are both four years old and retardedly optimistic. "Two bombers per missile site should do, it will be easy for the US because Iran won't be able to hit our airplanes at all." My ass.
A multiple of Iraq is a reasonable first order estimate.
|
Successfully occupying Iran would require more troops than the U.S. currently has. In other words, it's not happening. And Trump isn't going to get dragged into a war with Iran, either. He has other priorities.
|
On December 05 2016 11:30 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:09 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2016 11:05 TanGeng wrote:On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east. Iran wasn't chooped us as much as the rest of the middle east by the british and is largly an persian-shia country with a rather domesticated kurdish and azerbarjani minorities. Shia is true. Persian is only 55% of the population. While Iranian nationalism is the dominant social force now, it doesn't preclude such ethnic differences from bubbling up if there is another round of revolutions. Kurdish ethnic nationalism may very well uncork similar sentiments in other segments of the population. You have the major two minorities, Azari and Kurds. There's a large number of Lors, the Bakhtiari. There's Arabs in the gulf, Turkmen up north. Balochs in Bolochistan in the south. A series of ethnicities along the Caspian Sea.
The majority of the populace is also really young but non of these are the same structural problems that you saw in Iraq and Syria. Religion is a vastly larger unifying force then disparate minorities especially when the majority doesn't have a history of treating those minorities in any way like the other middle eastern countries. The Median age of the population (29.2 years) would slot them neatly into the space after the Iranian revolution and being born roughly around the war against iraq.
All this is moot. the US will happily sell all the equipment that these nations want to buy from them for a war against iran. Theres no reason to believe that they'll actually let them use them in a war against iran, The petrodollar relies on US naval control over the stright of hormuz as well as the persian and oman gulfs. Keeping both sides in a profitable paranoia is smart FP.
|
On December 05 2016 11:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:What are the chances that this is over? Show nested quote +Federal officials will not provide a permit that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, a government representative announced Sunday, a decision that set off celebrations among the thousands of protesters who have spent months camped out on the land in an effort to block construction efforts.
Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army's assistant secretary for civil works, said she based her decision on a need to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing. This comes three weeks after a November 14 announcement from her office that delayed the decision after protests from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said in her statement. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."
Darcy said the consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an environmental impact statement with full public input and analysis, delivering both an immediate reprieve and political statement that could aid in future showdowns with President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html
Slightly more than 0? The overwhelming majority weren't simply protesting it's particular path, the path just made it an especially bad plan to start with.
|
On December 05 2016 11:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing", I'm glad you have such deep, insightful sources supporting your own point. Most other estimates I've seen from so called "reliable" sources are both four years old and retardedly optimistic. "Two bombers per missile site should do, it will be easy for the US because Iran won't be able to hit our airplanes at all." My ass. A multiple of Iraq is a reasonable first order estimate.
CIA world factbook is a good scource for basic global statistics on other nations.
I don't think that they'll need to be an occupation of Iran, I don't think that they'll need to be a war with iran in the first place. But to say that it'll take four years to conquer Iran is just silly. Hyperwar doesn't last months and I doubt it would last a week. The real sticking point is the global oil supply and Irans ability to contest shipping in the straight of hormuz. That'll cause the largest amount of physical damage and global diplomatic pressure on the aggressor.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 11:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing", I'm glad you have such deep, insightful sources supporting your own point. Most other estimates I've seen from so called "reliable" sources are both four years old and retardedly optimistic. "Two bombers per missile site should do, it will be easy for the US because Iran won't be able to hit our airplanes at all." My ass. A multiple of Iraq is a reasonable first order estimate. CIA world factbook is a good scource for basic global statistics on other nations. I don't think that they'll need to be an occupation of Iran, I don't think that they'll need to be a war with iran in the first place. But to say that it'll take four years to conquer Iran is just silly. Hyperwar doesn't last months and I doubt it would last a week. The real sticking point is the global oil supply and Irans ability to contest shipping in the straight of hormuz. That'll cause the largest amount of physical damage and global diplomatic pressure on the aggressor.
So what kind of war with Iran are you envisioning? A full-scale war in which everything goes perfectly and there are no problems whatsoever? A limited airstrike with no boots on the ground? A fantasy scenario in which Russia and China (nations with which Iran has security agreements with, by the way) won't get involved?
Any scenario involving a war with Iran will end quite badly.
|
On December 05 2016 11:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:30 TanGeng wrote:On December 05 2016 11:09 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2016 11:05 TanGeng wrote:On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east. Iran wasn't chooped us as much as the rest of the middle east by the british and is largly an persian-shia country with a rather domesticated kurdish and azerbarjani minorities. Shia is true. Persian is only 55% of the population. While Iranian nationalism is the dominant social force now, it doesn't preclude such ethnic differences from bubbling up if there is another round of revolutions. Kurdish ethnic nationalism may very well uncork similar sentiments in other segments of the population. You have the major two minorities, Azari and Kurds. There's a large number of Lors, the Bakhtiari. There's Arabs in the gulf, Turkmen up north. Balochs in Bolochistan in the south. A series of ethnicities along the Caspian Sea. The majority of the populace is also really young but non of these are the same structural problems that you saw in Iraq and Syria. Religion is a vastly larger unifying force then disparate minorities especially when the majority doesn't have a history of treating those minorities in any way like the other middle eastern countries.
Religion is a far more unifying force because the current regime is oriented toward religion.
A new political order will bring its own unifying and divisive forces. The structural problem of an oil export based central government remains. And it presides over a geographically challenging and ethnically diverse country.
|
On December 05 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:50 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2016 11:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing", I'm glad you have such deep, insightful sources supporting your own point. Most other estimates I've seen from so called "reliable" sources are both four years old and retardedly optimistic. "Two bombers per missile site should do, it will be easy for the US because Iran won't be able to hit our airplanes at all." My ass. A multiple of Iraq is a reasonable first order estimate. CIA world factbook is a good scource for basic global statistics on other nations. I don't think that they'll need to be an occupation of Iran, I don't think that they'll need to be a war with iran in the first place. But to say that it'll take four years to conquer Iran is just silly. Hyperwar doesn't last months and I doubt it would last a week. The real sticking point is the global oil supply and Irans ability to contest shipping in the straight of hormuz. That'll cause the largest amount of physical damage and global diplomatic pressure on the aggressor. So what kind of war with Iran are you envisioning? A full-scale war in which everything goes perfectly and there are no problems whatsoever? A limited airstrike with no boots on the ground? A fantasy scenario in which Russia and China (nations with which Iran has security agreements with, by the way) won't get involved? Any scenario involving a war with Iran will end quite badly.
A war where we dispose the government in a matter of days and elevate the presidency to the unchallenged sovereign. That would be the "idea" war I guess if you want a war. I don't think a war is good for the US or smart for the US as the status quo continuing is more beneficial then what could possible come after a war even after the costs of war are included in.
|
On December 05 2016 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:What are the chances that this is over? Federal officials will not provide a permit that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, a government representative announced Sunday, a decision that set off celebrations among the thousands of protesters who have spent months camped out on the land in an effort to block construction efforts.
Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army's assistant secretary for civil works, said she based her decision on a need to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing. This comes three weeks after a November 14 announcement from her office that delayed the decision after protests from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said in her statement. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."
Darcy said the consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an environmental impact statement with full public input and analysis, delivering both an immediate reprieve and political statement that could aid in future showdowns with President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html Slightly more than 0? The overwhelming majority weren't simply protesting it's particular path, the path just made it an especially bad plan to start with.
Correction, 0.
As an aside, I don't think there will be much surprise in the camp.
|
How do they have the authority to forge on ahead? Don't they legally need the Corps to sign off on it before continuing? Or are they so sure Trump will approve it they know they can continue to work.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On December 05 2016 12:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:50 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2016 11:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing", I'm glad you have such deep, insightful sources supporting your own point. Most other estimates I've seen from so called "reliable" sources are both four years old and retardedly optimistic. "Two bombers per missile site should do, it will be easy for the US because Iran won't be able to hit our airplanes at all." My ass. A multiple of Iraq is a reasonable first order estimate. CIA world factbook is a good scource for basic global statistics on other nations. I don't think that they'll need to be an occupation of Iran, I don't think that they'll need to be a war with iran in the first place. But to say that it'll take four years to conquer Iran is just silly. Hyperwar doesn't last months and I doubt it would last a week. The real sticking point is the global oil supply and Irans ability to contest shipping in the straight of hormuz. That'll cause the largest amount of physical damage and global diplomatic pressure on the aggressor. So what kind of war with Iran are you envisioning? A full-scale war in which everything goes perfectly and there are no problems whatsoever? A limited airstrike with no boots on the ground? A fantasy scenario in which Russia and China (nations with which Iran has security agreements with, by the way) won't get involved? Any scenario involving a war with Iran will end quite badly.
No one gonna start a world war for Iran come on, it would be like the OTAN starting a world war because of Ukraine. No one as either strategics or ideological reason to start a war defending them, the fall of the regime is not a danger to the futur of China or Russia.This is not the 18-19 century when country just declared war for any reason, you don't burn the whole globe to protect a few galon of oil and one or two military bases.
It would probably just be a quick military offensive leading to the fall the regime and then a couple of decades of "securisation" of the country and just general shit. China or Russia would probably just do economical action or fund rebels groups or something like that, just to make sure the US dump billions of dollars in a bottomless hole and end up looking like imperialist and weak. (probably leading to even more rebells in the US influence zone in the middle east)
Anyway I don't see the US beeing stupid enough to go in Iran, there is nothing for them to gain there. I guess them having nuclear power would be the only thing, to send a message to any other country wanting to develop it or if they have strong reason to think they are actually going to use it, but it is a long stretch. Plus it would be a political suicide to go in Iran, war in the middle east are not exactly popular right now.
|
On December 05 2016 10:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages. You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent. Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran.
Not only is Iran a real military opponent, but the narrative so far seems to be entirely lopsided to the US being a bully. The UN will never condone the US going to war with Iran. That will most likely lead to the US going it alone. European allies were burned enough in Iraq that they would be hesitant to commit to any war, let alone one with a big military power and no real justification. And Russia seems quite likely to ally with Iran in such a case. While they are no fans of the theocracy, they really don't want a US puppet state there.
Anyway, wasn't Trump all America first and non-interventionist? Why would a war with Iran be on the table?
|
I believe the most tricky part when it comes to a war with Iran is that it will receive open reinforcement from Iraq, Lebanon Hezbollah and any other Shia groups. They all swear direct loyalty to Ali Khaminai.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 17:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 10:16 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages. You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent. Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran. Not only is Iran a real military opponent, but the narrative so far seems to be entirely lopsided to the US being a bully. The UN will never condone the US going to war with Iran. That will most likely lead to the US going it alone. European allies were burned enough in Iraq that they would be hesitant to commit to any war, let alone one with a big military power and no real justification. And Russia seems quite likely to ally with Iran in such a case. While they are no fans of the theocracy, they really don't want a US puppet state there. Anyway, wasn't Trump all America first and non-interventionist? Why would a war with Iran be on the table?
Defense secretary has a grudge against Iran people fear might escalate into real war.
It would take something truly special for Congress to actually approve something like that though. Americans have no stomach for wars that aren't easy steamrolls.
|
On December 05 2016 19:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 17:07 Acrofales wrote:On December 05 2016 10:16 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages. You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent. Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran. Not only is Iran a real military opponent, but the narrative so far seems to be entirely lopsided to the US being a bully. The UN will never condone the US going to war with Iran. That will most likely lead to the US going it alone. European allies were burned enough in Iraq that they would be hesitant to commit to any war, let alone one with a big military power and no real justification. And Russia seems quite likely to ally with Iran in such a case. While they are no fans of the theocracy, they really don't want a US puppet state there. Anyway, wasn't Trump all America first and non-interventionist? Why would a war with Iran be on the table? Defense secretary has a grudge against Iran people fear might escalate into real war. It would take something truly special for Congress to actually approve something like that though. Americans have no stomach for wars that aren't easy steamrolls.
or when they are the "victim" of an attack
|
No, what Obama put in motion was a policy of more substantial engagement with Iran than was the case under previous presidents. The Iran deal is in this respect a great diplomatic success story. Arguing that Obama put the U.S. on a path to war with Iran is completely disingenuous -- the opposite is true. This overview by Kenneth Katzman is a good resource for those not familiar with the topic.
|
What a circus:
Ben Carson nominated for housing secretary in Trump administration
Donald Trump has nominated former opponent Ben Carson as the secretary of housing and urban development, according to an announcement from the president-elect’s transition team.
In a statement on Monday, Trump said he was “thrilled to nominate” Carson, saying he “has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities”.
“Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a presidency representing all Americans.”
Carson had previously taken himself out of the running to serve in Trump’s cabinet amid speculation that the retired neurosurgeon was being considered to head the Department of Health and Human Services. A Carson spokesperson said he did not feel he had the experience to run a federal agency and did not want to assume a role “that could cripple the presidency”.
The guy ran for president, but didn't think he had the experience to run a federal agency. You can't make this up.
|
A man who said he was investigating a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a pizza place fired an assault rifle inside the Washington, D.C., restaurant on Sunday injuring no one, police and news reports said.
Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Aquita Brown said police received a call Sunday afternoon about a male with a weapon on Connecticut Avenue, in an affluent neighborhood of the nation's capital.
Edgar Maddison Welch, 28 of Salisbury, North Carolina, walked into the front door of Comet Ping Pong and pointed a firearm in the direction of a restaurant employee, the Washington Post (http://wapo.st/2gERkPC) reported.
The employee was able to flee and notify police. Welch then fired the gun into the floor.
Police responded and arrested Welch without incident. They recovered an "assault rifle," Brown said. Welch was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon.
Two firearms were recovered inside the restaurant and an additional weapon was recovered from the suspect's vehicle, police said in a statement on Sunday evening.
The Comet Ping Pong is in a neighborhood of well-tended private homes and apartment buildings on leafy streets that lead to a mix of shops, restaurants and the Politics and Prose book store. The restaurant gained notoriety during the presidential campaign after fake news stories stated that Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief ran a child sex ring out of the restaurant, The New York Times and other news organizations have reported.
Welch told police he'd come to the restaurant to "self-investigate" the fictitious online conspiracy theory that spread online during Clinton's run for the White House, the police statement said.
The Comet, its owner, staff and nearby businesses were caught up in an onslaught of conspiracy theories and fake news during the often contentious presidential campaign and were the victims social media attacks and death threats, the Post reported.
James Alefantis, owner of Comet Ping Pong, released a statement late Sunday night that denied what he called the "malicious and utterly false accusations" and said the company hoped to resume normal operations within a few days.
"I hope that those involved in fanning these flames will take a moment to contemplate what happened here today, and stop promoting these falsehoods right away," Alefantis said in the statement.
https://apnews.com/4eed32472c5541fca4d3934e45a4abe8/Police:-Fake-news-story-led-man-to-shoot-inside-pizza-shop
For those unfamiliar with the background to this, there was an email in the Podesta leaks that mentioned a pizza place called Comet Pizza. With nothing else to go on, somehow /r/the_donald, /r/conspiracy and /pol/ convinced themselves that the Clintons and people close to them use that place to rape, torture and eat children and practice occult rituals.
A couple weeks ago one of those guys took a video of himself 'investigating' (read: harass) that pizza place, and now another guy goes to a ping pong place owned by the same company pointing a gun at the staff. This fake news shit has gone well past some harmless internet trolling, some of these guys believe those stories with religious fervor and are willing to risk prison to 'uncover' them.
|
On December 05 2016 22:10 kwizach wrote:What a circus: Show nested quote +Ben Carson nominated for housing secretary in Trump administration
Donald Trump has nominated former opponent Ben Carson as the secretary of housing and urban development, according to an announcement from the president-elect’s transition team.
In a statement on Monday, Trump said he was “thrilled to nominate” Carson, saying he “has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities”.
“Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a presidency representing all Americans.”
Carson had previously taken himself out of the running to serve in Trump’s cabinet amid speculation that the retired neurosurgeon was being considered to head the Department of Health and Human Services. A Carson spokesperson said he did not feel he had the experience to run a federal agency and did not want to assume a role “that could cripple the presidency”. The guy ran for president, but didn't think he had the experience to run a federal agency. You can't make this up.
Wasn't this from like two weeks ago? Anyway, in another non-contributory post: it's hilarious that he made his black friend the head of urban development even tho this person has no professional experience with such matters (as far as I know). It's just such a classic comedy move, like in that real documentary "The Office" with Micheal Scott, who kept calling his only black employee "urban". The fact that Carsons representative even said he wouldn't be fit for a position in the cabinet just icing on the cake. I suppose it is an anti-establishment pick in that regard though, haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
