I’ve got a much, much better idea. Why don’t you compose a whole lot of posts – or one big one – in which you will satisfactorily address each and every single one of the questions, objections, arguments, deconstructions, and debunkings of factual error that were directed at you in, let’s see, posts # 63, 64, 71, 73, 77, 78, 82, 83, 90, 91, 100, 105, 113, 117, 119, 120, 142, 143, 144, 150, 173, 174, 175, 177, and 179.
All of which you have been cowardly ignoring up to now.
If you read my posts you’ll know I’ve addressed most of what’s been slung at me in this thread, it’s not my fault you can’t keep up. You do seem like such a credulous fellow after all, and considering your twitchy multi-posting maybe I should refrain from metaphor ‘n’ such.
What, exactly, is your issue among those 25 posts? Have you ever been concise a day in your life? And more importantly, isn’t this really about the fact that you’re suddenly horrified horrified what men at war will do?
Re: the Brits, what you see as a troop pullback some people see as an improvement. I see a liability for Gordon Brown and down the road a big bite in the ass for the Conservatives.
But really, what’s this got to do with Iran?
I’ve read everything in all your posts. The above is a list of posts containing questions, arguments, etc., you haven’t answered, not even obliquely.
That’s the thing about a board like this one. Every character you post becomes a permanent public record and you can neither deny you said x nor pretend you said y. And other posters can dissect your statements and challenge or refute them, line by line, point by point. That’s how we do it in GD. Give it a try. If you dare.
Now who can’t keep up? Look elsewhere for mercy, cowardly pig-dog! 
Not that, not at all. I’ve always known what can happen, what people are capapble of, once a war starts. What horrifies me is (1) we have a national leadership stupid or evil enough to get us into this mess to no good purpose, and for purposes other than the stated purposes, and based on lies; and not only that, but to seek to expand it; and (2) we have too many Americans like yourself who ignore reality (or ignore ethics, sometimes it’s hard to tell with you) to such an extent that they just can’t see why all of that is a very, very bad idea.
How?
Afghanistan, as an issue, can be separated from Iran, as an issue. Iraq cannot be.
More specifically, the recent decision of the UK (and Denmark) means (1) even if W gets his “surge,” it will do no more than replace the withdrawn the British, etc., troops and hold the numbers of the total occupying force more or less constant; and (2) if W decides to attack Iran, we’ll be going it alone – no active support from any ally but Israel.
Put still more simply: This development puts us one more step away from having Ahmadinejad by the short and curlies.
You’re obviously familiar with the questions among those threads and seemingly you have the unique need to have them answered further. The onus is on you to just. get. your point. across.
You are a pompous douchebag.
Apparently you don’t get it. As I amply proved, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Then robby, from a position of experience, showed you. I didn’t see you refuting his information – is that how you “dissect” one’s inconvenient arguments in GD? You’re there, so I prefer to be here and limit my contact with such unctuousness.
I ask you to be concise and you pull this. Are you trolling?
Then you’re just a child. This is the entitlement system that allowed you to take so long edumucating yourself. Wake the fuck up.
And learn to read, because I’m only going to say this one more fucking time: many of these concepts are not my views. I am here to report the facts and opinions of an increasingly-important part of the United States.
In place of British soldiers, we will be able to rotate to Basra other forces (read humanitarian/social) more suited to keeping the peace than crushing a conflict. If US troops are placed there, it will lead to more integration and possibly yield a crystal-clear understanding (via the expert Brits) of how to successfully pacify a region.
Cite? 21,000 does not equal 1,700 or even 7,000. Is this GD math?
Cite? If Congress decides to strike Iran’s nuke infrastructure, we will be aided by Israel, no doubt. What fuels that crystal ball of yours?
Flat wrong. As I said before, this is precisely the war we wanted and we’re getting precisely the New Model Army Mr Rumsfeld wanted. It’s a brutal, effective supremacy.
I REALLY wish you wouldn’t throw the word “we” around so casually; it might lead some to believe that I personally wanted this war at all, in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah, but Bush’s surge numbers don’t add up.
While I can’t find a cite at the moment, word has it that Israel’s military discovered their equipment wasn’t as good as they hoped when they invaded Lebanon. In any case, after the problems Israel had in Lebanon, I’m not sure how eager they’ll be to join in.
Ah, this must be some use of the term “supremacy” that I’m not familiar with.
I see. So now you’re a liar and a coward.
Thank you. It’s good to be appreciated. 
Why should I? I see no reason to doubt his information. I asked for a nuclear engineer’s opinion on the question and I got it. Ignorance smashed! That’s how we do it, or aspire to do it, in all forums, I should hope. But the fact remains that the Iranian nuclear engineers know perfectly well that the scenario robby described is possible, and they have been preparing for it, which is why the most important potential-target reactors are underground and bomb-hardened.
[yawn] Unctuousness is better than cowardice.
No; but I am not obliged to oblige you.
Then you need to be much more clear and explicit about which views you are reporting and which you are merely defending. Otherwise you’ll sound like you’re backtracking and weaseling out of any position you appear to have taken but can’t seriously defend, and you’ll look really pathetic. Oh, wait . . . too late . . .
The part of the United States to which you refer – by which you mean, obviously, the part that takes seriously the criminally insane world-view of the neocons – is, undoubtedly, important, but you are ignoring the poll trends, election returns, and many other compelling indicators if you think it is increasingly important.
That, at least, makes some sense, given that Basra has been relatively quiet, up to now. I.e., we probably can do it. But I don’t see how having to police Basra ourselves makes things better for us than having the Brits continue doing it. You think we can use it as a learning experience – but the Brits have not been successful in Basra because they are better than we are at that sort of thing, but because there were fewer causes of unrest in the first place in that solidly Shi’ite province. And what lessons we learn will be useless in parts of Iraq where peacekeeping efforts would be putting the cart before the horse because there is still so much active conflict to be crushed.
No, of course not, but this is only the beginning. I expect the last British troops will be out of Iraq well before the next British general election – which Blair can in theory postpone until 2010, barring a vote of no confidence, but he won’t, it just isn’t done. The UK will have a new PM before the U.S. has a new POTUS.
Yes, that was my point. Israel and nobody else. The Brits won’t back us, nor will NATO, nor the EU, nor the UN. Certainly, if U.S. forces bomb Iran, with our without Congressional authorization, the Israelis will back us. So what? What strategic advantage does that give us? We might as well make an alliance with Luxembourg. Israel has a good military, to be sure, probably the best in the world allowing for the country’s size; but it is nothing compared to our military – or Iran’s, for that matter.
The war “we” wanted? OK, who’s “we” here? That is, are you defending, or are you simply attributing to Rumsfeld and his misbegotten ilk and their braindead Fox-News-viewing supporters, the proposition that we should want a war with Iran? If the former, why? What good can possibly come of it? I hope you will not venture to defend, even by deniable implications, the proposition that winning for the U.S. “a brutal, effective supremacy” is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.
And what’s this about a “New Model Army”? Rumsfeld was the guy who pointed out we can’t go to war with the army we wish we had. Restructuring a military establishment is best done in peacetime.
Sorry. It’s hard to discuss this sort of thing without employing the national “we.” It’s just meant as a timesaver. Most of the time, that is.
Is the claim that they’ve been successful anything but propaganda ? I’ve heard that there is plenty of fighting between rival factions, and religiously motivated violence.
I like The Times take on this:
Basra is the Waterloo of the Napoleon of Downing Street
Hmm . . . Interesting. I had just assumed Basra was “relatively quiet” because the American media rarely report any violence there. We (all Americans, that is) really should pay more attention to the foreign press.
But it’s not clear from that story exactly who is fighting whom in Basra. Does anybody know?
It’s a real hodgepodge.
Basra betrayed: When the British leave, will the Mahdi Army replace them?
Remembering also that the Badra Brigade is the private army of powerful govt politicians and its members provide much of the police force. It also is, essentially the Interior Ministry Special Commandoes, which functions as a Death Squad and maintainer of secret torture jails.
I should have been more clear. I was referring to El Cid Viscoso’s post immediately preceding mine, in which he stated:
Speak for yourself, The Cid.
America is in Iraq. One day they will HAVE to leave. When they leave decades of internal shit will hit the fan. Iraq will continue the quasi civil war they have already embarked on.
America’s presence was wrong in many ways, mostly in the way they didn’t wait for Saddam to either cark it or for Iraqis to decide they had had enough.
It doesn’t matter if the US stays for 1 year or 5 years or 25 years when they leave the result will be the same. A massive civil war when the people of Iraq die/are killed as the balance of power is worked out.
The US invasion was wrong. Saddam was not the only dictator on the planet. He was not the only leader ignoring the UN (or other multi country organisations). He did hold a fractious country together for many years. His demise has led to many happy people but a country that WILL go through civil war because they finally have the chance too!
For the hundreds of people he would have punished/tortured/imprisoned many more have now died and that is before you add on the deaths of American troops. Only George would say this shit makes sense.
To even entertain the vaguest thought of attacking Iran in ANY way is IDIOTIC!
Unless you really want the entire world to be after you.
NZ went to Afganistan but not Iraq…the coalition was thin on the ground for that. The US has nooooo hope if Iran becames the enemy.
So it’s a choice between the Badr Brigade, which is a radical Shi’ite group controlled by Iran – or the Mahdi Army, which is, well, probably worse . . .
None of these groups are ‘controlled’ by foreign powers. That’s way too simplistic a way of looking at it. They dance with partners for support but they are pursuing their own, probably many and internally divisive interests.
Did the West control Pol Pot while we were supporting and training his forces after the Vietnamese ended his terror? Do we control the MEK? Did we control the Afghan rebels in the 80’s?
There are those who, having set such policies in motion, probably do believe that, yeh.
That’s probably true but these people are stupid beyond belief and completely ignorant of history and human nature. The concept of ‘blowback’ isn’t new. And the Iranian theocracy is pretty big blowback for our previous meddling.
(oops)