What, then, do you suggest the followup to a summary defeat of the Iranian armed forces would be?
Nothing, I don’t think we should invade Iran. I was just opining as to what would happen if Iranian forces tried to engage US forces CONVENTIONALLY subsequent to a US air campaign, which I also do not support. We have no business in Iraq or Iran. We didn’t 10 years ago and we don’t now.
Well, summarily defeating their military does not mean we’ve won. Which is my only point.
I never said or implied that we would have won anything. Just like we have not won anything in Iraq (except the animosity of most of the planet) we could not gain anything by fighting Iran. All I was saying was that in a CONVENTIONAL military engagement the Iranian military would be quickly defeated. In the CONVENTIONAL engagement only. It would soon devolve into the same UNWINABLE situation we currently have in Iraq but much much worse. Basically I think the only thing more stupid than invading Iran would be invading China or maybe the European Union…
Sorry you took it so personally. I was just going with the theme of this thread which seems to be: Change the topic to anything except the OP utilizing any extreme of cherry picking you can come up with.
BTW, if you talk to most of the liberals I know it not only means that there will be no more snow, it also means we’re all going to be swimming with the fishes in a year or two. No exagerration here…My house is 150 feet above sea level and one of my neighbors advised us to sell now before the ocean wipes us out.
And wrt military defeats, we’re still in Germany, still in Korea, still in the Balkans. And I can’t think of a single battle we lost in Iraq or Afghanistan. Can you? Any time they’ve engaged us militarily they’ve gotten their asses kicked bad, which is a good thing for freedom, democracy, women’s rights, gay rights, etc.
Serious question here: Are ad hominem attacks allowed in BBQ? Not that I’d want to start doing it, just wondering if that’s what I can expect if I stick around.
Well, sea levels are expected to rise, eventually, and some coastal areas will be in danger, eventually, but if you hang onto your house and live long enough, you may be able to make a killing by selling as beachfront property. And certainly, I don’t disagree that some liberals are being Chicken Little about it just as much as some conservatives are being ostriches. You need to hang out with a better class of liberal. 
Oh, yes. Off the top of my head, all I can think of that’s not allowed are racist attacks. Someone who is all attack, all the time, might at some point cross the “don’t be a jerk” line, but those of us who are only part time assholes are fairly safe.
Well there’s the problem, those aren’t liberals they’re idiots. They may also have some liberal positions but mostly they are idiots…
I think we’d be in for a very nasty surprise if Iran invaded Iraq, AND managed to make it a surprise. America kicks ass in conventional war in large part because we get to choose the time and circumstances of OUR attack on “them” – whoever them happens to be at the moment. That’s the ways it’s been ever since Korea, with a couple of exceptions during the Vietnam war.
If Iran attacked in force while American forces were deployed in scattered small units for basically police and anti-terrorist actions, it could be catastrophic – for us. Worse in some sense than when the Chinese intervened in Korea – at least then the US forces were deployed in something like conventional military formations.
Personally, though I don’t see this happening.
Well since we’re going off on tangents of tangents here, you wouldn’t believe how rarely I hear anything intelligent about politics from liberals. And these people are not idiots in any other area of their lives. I’m including people with doctoral degrees, professionals, graduates of top 50 colleges, people who know every detail about every movie of the last 50 years, every entree at every restaurant, etc. But when it comes to politics, it’s like BDS has hit them big time.
Two quick examples. A friend (successfully published author) was bothering me with boring talking points so I told him I would only talk politics with him if he could limit it to interesting and unique points. He agreed. And the next thing he says is: “But you do agree that Bush is an idiot, don’t you?” That’s interesting? As if I haven’t heard that about 1000 times already. And this is a guy who makes a good living writing books. He has to know the difference between interesting and boring when he’s at work. But mention Bush and the brain stops working.
Another friend is a partner at a top law firm. Easily makes seven figures arguing with other smart guys. And at the end of our last and final political argument his final comment was: “We still haven’t captured Bin Laden!” What did he expect me to say? “OMG, I didn’t realize that. Let’s immediately surrender, sell out Israel, appease the Islamists in any other way you can think of, and while we’re at it let’s raise taxes, open the borders to everyone and suspend the Second Amendment.”
I think you are forgetting that we have absolute air superiority. Iran would not be able to get a CONVENTIONAL force (I keep capitalizing it because people keep ignoring it) 50 miles past the Iraqi border. Remember the highway of death during the first gulf war? Air power in the desert is an awesome thing.
Yes, if it’s all still there, as well as sufficient weapons stockpiles. How much of the Air Force has been redeployed elsewhere? How much armor-piercing stuff is still there? How many tanks are still there?
I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I hope the Iranians don’t either.
And the highway of death was an already fleeing mob of civilian and military vehicles. An invasion would, presumably, have substantial air and SAM coverage.
I’m thinking more about a scenario like the 1973 Arab Israeli War, that turned out to be a very close thing for Israel.
On the SDMB, the quoted part pretty much sums up the basis for all political thought among the Usual Suspects. Everything is either a restatement of this axiom, a theorum derived from this axiom, or an attempt to bring the discussion back to a restatement of the axiom.
You get used to it after a while, mostly, after you accept that lots of folks here don’t have any other points to make.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re right, but I get pretty stubborn and I can’t accept that it’s that simple. It probably is.
I think what happens is I wind up playing Charlie Brown to their Lucy all the time. We go to dinner. They are bright, witty, fun. They show sensitivity in asking about our kids, in talking aobut their kids. They listen. They care. I let my guard down. I stop brushing aside their bids to talk politics…
You poor dears! How dreadfully stubborn of these people, given the events of the last several years, not to admit that you were right all along!
I’m very open to the idea that I’m not “right.” I always have been. But if the best you can do is to tell me that GWB is an idiot, it’s a waste of time.
I responded to your OP back in post #3. You never responded back, but let yourself get sidetracked in analyzing how liberals never say anything smart about politics or Iran or whatever the hell this thread is about now. It is possible to have cognizant discussions here, but it does take a certain willpower to ignore the inevitable partisan sniping. Just because someone says something you disagree with doesn’t mean you need to respond back.
But in any case, I’m not sure there’s much more to say about the OP. I think that Biden does in fact know how impeachment proceedings work as he was around for one not so long ago (and was also first elected during Watergate, which didn’t end in an impeachment, but probably involved a lot of discussion of it anyways). He gave the wrong impression in the bit you quoted, but as I said, he’s somewhat famous for his tendency to speak before thinking. You may find these arguments convincing or not, I do, but don’t have any absolute proof that he didn’t know he couldn’t actually file articles of impeachment from the senate, so don’t really have much more to add to the thread.
He was probably thinking that if he didn’t, no one else would even think of such a thing. The Leader being so widely beloved, and all.
It’s not entirely the OP’s fault; he had some help in the hijack.
hangs head in shame
These are supposed to be examples of liberals who become brain dead when talking about politics?
Let them have their little fallacies, it’s all they have. I don’t know any liberals that support any of those positions other than the made up liberals in the minds of idiots.