The Reason for the Target on Iran?

[ZombieApocolypse]

WTF was she talking about? I followed that for about the first 30 seconds and then I guess the flashing colors got the best of me and I lost her.

The timeline helps a little

 

[ocsdor]

Without going into detail about my military service, I was only overseas three times during my military career (Active and Reserve), but it wasn't for lack of trying - not that it's any of your business, Bummer.

And ocsdor, what is the significance of your screen name? Both of your comments, while attempting to demean me, didn't do a thing to advance your views, other than to expose your asses.

... because, as we all know, the military had to turn away all the volunteers wanting to go to Vietnam.

Note to others: This bickering started when I was personally attacked for posting a video directed at no INGO member.

 

[Bummer]

Without going into detail about my military service, I was only overseas three times during my military career (Active and Reserve), but it wasn't for lack of trying - not that it's any of your business, Bummer.

I didn't ask. That was a statement.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm sure there is more to many of the stories than most of the general public knows. However, I'm going to offer an alternative, less "conspiracy" theory.


Remember that it was only a few generations ago, in the 1930's and 1940's that our country took a very hands off and isolationist approach to the spread of several totalitarian regimes across Europe and South East Asia.

During that time we saw the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, the Japanese Empire, and other lesser, yet still involved regimes. Much of the Western world kept an eye on those expansionist regimes, but tried their best to stay out of it. Some hoped that by negotiating they could avoid a war, and in the end conceded a lot of territory to the Nazi's in Europe as a result. Japan took a more militaristic approach to expansion, but still was largely unresited during the intial stages. Little by little those regimes gathered power, territory, and military might. Little by little those regimes shifted from a message of peace, pride, and prosperity for their native people, and turned instead to genocide, rape, and torture.

I don't think I have to go any further with the history lesson, as most on the forum know what happened next starting in the fall of 1939, and went on through Summer of 1945. Suffice it to say, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sodiers and civilians died in the conflict now known as World War II.


Fast forward to the wars of the last 40 years. Many, not all, that we have been faught against include a totalitarian type of government that is oppressing its peoples, and aggressively threatening expansion. In some cases those regimes have even invaded other countries. In each case there has continued to be a period of negotiation attempts to prevent wars, but most of those have not been successful.


While I hate that our young men and women have died in so many of these conflicts, I would also like to think that in doing so we may have averted even larger global wars, that could in fact be termed WWIII, IV, V, and so on.

With the exeption of some of the recent "Wars on Terror", most of the conflicts we've been involved with since WWII have been efforts to overthrow what has been seen to be a very dangerous and unfriendly totalitarian government. Syria, Iran, NK, and others that are currently in the spot light fit into those buckets, just as Iraq did under Sadaam Hussein.


So I pose this question...if we take the isolationist approach we had in the 1930's, and pull completely out of the middle east, and ignore what is happening in North Korea, Africa, and even South America, how long until those regimes begin to expand into surrounding territory and start to drain those resources, and oppress those peoples? And if that happens, how long until the US and our allies are fighting another World War to liberate them? 5 years, 10 years, more? How many more lives would end up being lost in a larger global conflict?



By no means am I saying that our current strategy in the middle east and North Korea is the best one, but it certainly may be one of many strategies that is preventing a larger, more deadly conflict in the future.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, you're saying that Iran has the same military power as Germany and Japan circa 1930?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Without going into detail about my military service, I was only overseas three times during my military career (Active and Reserve), but it wasn't for lack of trying - not that it's any of your business, Bummer.

And ocsdor, what is the significance of your screen name? Both of your comments, while attempting to demean me, didn't do a thing to advance your views, other than to expose your asses.

You have to forgive them Blackhawk. They share a worldview where those that would answer America's call are the true enemies of liberty.

 

[ATOMonkey]

People love America, not the Federal Government. It's important to not confuse the two, especially when you start talking about sending people to war.

Of course, there are plenty of Nationalists and Statists more than willing to do whatever the government tells them.

 

[jblomenberg16]

So, you're saying that Iran has the same military power as Germany and Japan circa 1930?

In 1930's terms, certainly, but relative to current global capabilities of other powers, not even close. What I'm saying is that our strategy may be to prevent them from even reaching that level, let alone where they were at at the end of that decade.

The stronger your adversary is, the harder he is to beat.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So, you're saying that Iran has the same military power as Germany and Japan circa 1930?

Iran is the ancient site Persia, one of the greatest powers the world has ever seen. It's also the seat of a number of ****e shrines and holy cities. Iran could well hold the key to uniting the ****es, forming an army that Hitler and Hirohito would envy.

 

[rambone]

I think its a huge stretch to compare Iran to the Nazi war machine.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think its a huge stretch to compare Iran to the Nazi war machine.

I agree. The Nazis were a blip in time. The Persians were a 2,000 year old empire. At one point nearly half the world's population fell under Persian Rule. Hitler never made it off the European continent (well, OK, for a little while into Africa, but you get the picture).

 

[rambone]

I agree. The Nazis were a blip in time. The Persians were a 2,000 year old empire. At one point nearly half the world's population fell under Persian Rule. Hitler never made it off the European continent (well, OK, for a little while into Africa, but you get the picture).

You should forward this information to Leon Panetta.

 

[steveh_131]

You should forward this information to Leon Panetta.

Great idea. Please let him know that Islamic extremists have been hating our way of life since long before Islam existed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Had Hitler's Reich gotten a working A-bomb first, the outcome of WWII might have been much different than it turned out. Possession of nuclear weapons is a tremendous force-multiplier in strategic warfare and it can be considered a tremendous power-multiplier in strategic politics. Right now the Iranians aren't much, militarily, compared to First World countries, even if they have one of the largest military forces in their area. But let them get a working nuclear weapons program, and they instantly become much more powerful in local, regional and world politics. Unlike the Syrian Baathists, who are primarily secular muslims who use the religion as a cover for their dictatorial endeavors, the Iranian leadership are true muslims who desire to bring back the glory of the Caliphate that once ruled most of the mideast, and they want to extend it worldwide. Allowing them or their allies access to nuclear weapons gives them a great deal more immunity from conventional attack and won't slow down their strategic ambitions one little bit, Ron Paul's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding (as they say).

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Seems like this guy's opinion fits here

Major General Smedley Butler USMC



Seems like this man knew what he was talking about all the way back in the 1930's .

 

[jblomenberg16]

I think its a huge stretch to compare Iran to the Nazi war machine.

My comparison is not so much to the Nazi war machine as we know it from the history books, and more towards the Totalitarian nature of the government in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. Add to that a dictator with and oppressive of expansionist agenda, and you have a situation that could turn into that if left unchecked, especially when/if they have nuclear capability.

You guys may certainly be right...this may all just be following the money. We know that wars are often fought as a result of money and resources. I'm just trying to offer a counterpoint that offers a less sinister explanation.

Lets say that in 1940 we had the same military capabilities for ground warfare as we did in 1944 adn 1945. Would we have still waited until June of 1944 to invade mainland Europe to take on Germany?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

My comparison is not so much to the Nazi war machine as we know it from the history books, and more towards the Totalitarian nature of the government in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. Add to that a dictator with and oppressive of expansionist agenda, and you have a situation that could turn into that if left unchecked, especially when/if they have nuclear capability.

You guys may certainly be right...this may all just be following the money. We know that wars are often fought as a result of money and resources. I'm just trying to offer a counterpoint that offers a less sinister explanation.

Lets say that in 1940 we had the same military capabilities for ground warfare as we did in 1944 adn 1945. Would we have still waited until June of 1944 to invade mainland Europe to take on Germany?

Yes. Our government was full of appeasers, isolationists, and others who believed that we should avoid all foreign entanglements. Didn't really work out so well for us, having a bunch of ships destroyed and thousands of lives lost and all that. And we still ended up in a war. But I guess since it was on someone else's terms it was OK.

It really makes me wonder why anyone thinks a return to that worldview would result in a different outcome. But then I consider that it's mostly people whose only concern with history is 20 year old votes by candidates they don't like.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I do not condone picking arbitrary wars. I agree completely that we need to beware of the military industrial complex and it nefarious offspring that has taken hold of law enforcement and correction (with the highly-touted and equally ineffective war on drugs being the most prominent example).

Afghanistan earned our attention. That said, I would have handled it in a far different manner. Ordinarily, given their protection of bin Laden I would have advocated bombing them into the stone age, but since they were already in the stone age, is there such a thing as a dust age? This could have been done without putting boots on the ground.

As for Iran, I would have a difficult time saying that we should simply live and let live concerning people who 1., openly advocate eliminating us and our only real ally in the middle east from the face of the planet, and 2., are earnestly working on building nuclear weapons. Do you want to deal with the preemptively now or glow in the dark later? Mutual assured destruction as a deterrent does not work with people who are generally happy to die for their cause. Further, Iran is supplying weapons to most anyone willing to fire them at either us or Israel, so why should we believe that having exponentially larger and more destructive weapons would slow them down any?

I have no desire to be the bully on the block (or the globe) but if it comes down to either me or the other guy, I am taking care of myself and those with me first.

 

[rambone]

As for Iran, I would have a difficult time saying that we should simply live and let live concerning people who 1., openly advocate eliminating us and our only real ally in the middle east from the face of the planet,

Are we sure that is accurate? From what I've seen it is repetitive propaganda used to justify preemptive war.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Are we sure that is accurate? From what I've seen it is repetitive propaganda used to justify preemptive war.

That's because it is what you want to see.

Actually, he was parroting Grand Ayatollah Khomeini who said he wanted Israel to vanish from the arena of time. I'm pretty sure that wiped from the map and vanish from time are about the same thing.