Bush and Walker already arguing on when to start a war with Iran.

[Nebor]

If you think we can subdue Iran with bombing you're a complete cretin.

The comparison of Iran to Libya was cretinous all along.

I'd prefer a bombing campaign in support of a grassroots coup from within Iran (orchestrated by the CIA of course) that put someone more reasonable in charge than the Ayatollah. The Iranian people, by all accounts, love Western movies, culture, & fashion, but they're being oppressed by the Ayatollah and his secret police. So we can intervene now while we have the chance, or wait until they have a nuclear weapon, at which point they'll be untouchable.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd prefer a bombing campaign in support of a grassroots coup from within Iran (orchestrated by the CIA of course) that put someone more reasonable in charge than the Ayatollah. The Iranian people, by all accounts, love Western movies, culture, & fashion, but they're being oppressed by the Ayatollah and his secret police. So we can intervene now while we have the chance, or wait until they have a nuclear weapon, at which point they'll be untouchable.

It's pretty hilarious that this reasoning is basically identical to the argument that put the Shah in power, thus leading to this regime to begin with.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'd prefer a bombing campaign in support of a grassroots coup from within Iran (orchestrated by the CIA of course) that put someone more reasonable in charge than the Ayatollah. The Iranian people, by all accounts, love Western movies, culture, & fashion, but they're being oppressed by the Ayatollah and his secret police. So we can intervene now while we have the chance, or wait until they have a nuclear weapon, at which point they'll be untouchable.

Flesh that script out and get back to me. Make sure to have a white male lead and a younger iranian love interest that falls for the white man.

 

[nickqt]

It's pretty hilarious that this reasoning is basically identical to the argument that put the Shah in power, thus leading to this regime to begin with.

I was just about to say that the US and UK, with the help of the CIA, could overthrow Iran's elected government and put in someone who would work with the US like we did back in 1953.

Funny how they keep thinking the same failed strategies will work, this time, isn't it?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd prefer a bombing campaign in support of a grassroots coup from within Iran (orchestrated by the CIA of course) that put someone more reasonable in charge than the Ayatollah. The Iranian people, by all accounts, love Western movies, culture, & fashion, but they're being oppressed by the Ayatollah and his secret police. So we can intervene now while we have the chance, or wait until they have a nuclear weapon, at which point they'll be untouchable.

Imagine the Russians bombing us in coordination with the Republican Party. To free us from the tyranny of President Hillary Clinton. Then take your bombs and shove them up your ass. You are mentally ill and shouldn't try to do a lot of thinking.

 

[bshole]

I was just about to say that the US and UK, with the help of the CIA, could overthrow Iran's elected government and put in someone who would work with the US like we did back in 1953.

Funny how they keep thinking the same failed strategies will work, this time, isn't it?

I'm kind of a fatalist. I see nuclear exchanges between countries as inevitable in my lifetime. Nuclear proliferation is a horror with consequences that are just hideous to contemplate. Conflagration seems the guaranteed fate of mankind. Eventually a country with a leader who doesn't give a fuck about self preservation will get the capability and unleash Armageddon. On the plus side, global warming will cease being a problem.

I believe American foreign policy may be driving nuclear proliferation. We invade non-nuclear countries on the filmiest of excuses. We are an existential threat to many regimes. Nuclear weapons are the ONLY way they can counter that threat.

 

[Nebor]

It's pretty hilarious that this reasoning is basically identical to the argument that put the Shah in power, thus leading to this regime to begin with.

I'm not saying that it'll work this time. But what I am saying is, the third time's the charm.

 

[nickqt]

I'm kind of a fatalist. I see nuclear exchanges between countries as inevitable in my lifetime. Nuclear proliferation is a horror with consequences that are just hideous to contemplate. Conflagration seems the guaranteed fate of mankind. Eventually a country with a leader who doesn't give a fuck about self preservation will get the capability and unleash Armageddon. On the plus side, global warming will cease being a problem.

I believe American foreign policy may be driving nuclear proliferation. We invade non-nuclear countries on the filmiest of excuses. We are an existential threat to many regimes. Nuclear weapons are the ONLY way they can counter that threat.

If India and Pakistan have refrained from causing a worldwide nuclear winter so far, considering their hostility towards each other and a shared f-ing border, I wouldn't put too much thought into other countries deciding to end most of human life.

I am, though, concerned about a nuclear accident with one of these weapons. It will make a lot of countries decide that storing thousands of them on their own soil isn't as beneficial as previously thought.

Otherwise, we need less countries with nuclear weapons, and while I know the boogieman is currently being employed to scare everyone about Iran, they're going to get a weapon if they really want it, so anything that sweetens the deal so that they don't want one, the better.

Not to mention, a thaw in relations can do a lot to get past this inherent hostility that is based on decades-old BS.

Sometimes I truly believe anyone alive and forming lasting memories prior to 1980 is suffering from PTSD and should be escorted carefully away from the levers of power in any country or business.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd prefer a bombing campaign in support of a grassroots coup from within Iran (orchestrated by the CIA of course) that put someone more reasonable in charge than the Ayatollah. The Iranian people, by all accounts, love Western movies, culture, & fashion, but they're being oppressed by the Ayatollah and his secret police.

I'm sure we've been working on that for the last 37 years. I doubt we'd get better results working on it for the next 37 years. They've rallied behind their govt in the face of every challenge.

So we can intervene now while we have the chance, or wait until they have a nuclear weapon, at which point they'll be untouchable.

Always revert to the assertion that Iran *will* get the bomb, even when the ROTW quits giving them reasons to want it. Even when their facilities are under perpetual IAEA supervision.

Because... Crazy Mullahs! Axis of Evil! Poor Israel!

 

[Nebor]

Flesh that script out and get back to me. Make sure to have a white male lead and a younger iranian love interest that falls for the white man.

That shouldn't be hard, the US soldiers will be greeted as welcomed liberators.

 

[JSt0rm]

That shouldn't be hard, the US soldiers will be greeted as welcomed liberators.

Are you sure you aren't a parody account?

Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

 

[MrPickins]

That shouldn't be hard, the US soldiers will be greeted as welcomed liberators.

You overplayed your hand.

Nice trolling up to that point, though. :thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

I wonder if there's an alternate universe out there where Ike told Churchill to pound sand and Iran is one of America's staunchest allies against Saudi Wahhabism

 

[JSt0rm]

I wonder if there's an alternate universe out there where Ike told Churchill to pound sand and Iran is one of America's staunchest allies against Saudi Wahhabism

Maybe we can get back to that. With carrots.

 

[Spungo]

I was just about to say that the US and UK, with the help of the CIA, could overthrow Iran's elected government and put in someone who would work with the US like we did back in 1953.

I love learning about WW1, and I'm always surprised to see that countries don't learn some of the most significant lessons from that conflict. As it turns out, people overthrow their own government if you starve them. Germany was fighting France to the west, Russia to the east, and the north coast was blocked by the British Navy. It was a complete shutdown of trade on all sides. By the end of the war, metal was in such short supply that they were tearing out water pipes and melting down church bells just to make bullets. Even after an armistice was signed, the Kaiser was forced to step down, and he fled to Holland to save his own life. Russia had collapsed the year before for a lot of the same reasons - diverting materials to war causes widespread shortages and unstoppable inflation. The tsar was forced to step down, and his entire family was killed. France and UK were fairly close to collapsing as well, but they were doing a lot better than Germany and Russia. Throwing all of your resources into a war (which Paul Krugman argues is a good thing) tends to cause extreme and widespread poverty. It leads to revolutions. You don't even need to put the CIA into the country. The Germans were responsible for sending Lenin to Russia. He wasn't a spy. He was just a Russian guy who wanted to cause trouble, and the Russian people were hungry enough to support anyone as long as it destroyed the existing government.

This works both ways. Living in Iran under the Shah sucked, so guess what happened. Yep, overthrown. If a government has a puppet you like, it's in your best interest to make that country prosper so the puppet doesn't get thrown out. If a government has a leader you don't like, it makes more sense to have unrestricted trade warfare. Instead of invading Iraq, it probably would have been easier and cheaper to block all trade in and out of the country. Just let people get angry and kill their leader so you don't need to. It would still be a humanitarian disaster, but it would be a lot more humane than what we did. Iraq is a genetic disaster because of us. link. At least starving people to death doesn't cause birth defects for decades afterward.

Some of the smarter leaders throughout history understood this concept. Bismark was responsible for creating the first welfare state. As long as average people were doing ok, nobody was in a rush to change the government. One could argue that prosperity is the only thing keeping America's government in place. Guys like Bush I and Clinton were corrupt just like any other politicians, but people didn't really care since the economy was doing well. The US economy has been steadily shrinking since 2000, so people seem to get angrier every year. Look at what is happening in Greece right now. Are people rioting because today's politicians are more corrupt than yesterday's politicians? Of course not. People are rioting because the economy is horrible, people don't have jobs, and they don't have hope. Revolutions have everything to do with economics, so the most effective war will always be economic in nature.