Posted on 05/13/2007 5:00:34 PM PDT by freedom44
(But)
Your earlier comments regarding how Shah was ousted don't quite fit my recall:
"The iranians found the courage to die to get rid of the shah. When they've had enough of the mullahs they will do it again."
Yes, Iranians were protesting, yes, the Shah was a despot, yes, he was a benign despot as the region might rate dictators. No, we should not stand by and condone despotism although we've a long history of doing so. And, yes, the 'dynasty' was not and the origins were as you state.
But, no, I don't think the ouster was home grown. Khomeini (sp?) had western help and Carter was knee deep in it.
"The fact that the iranians who led the revolution were out-smarted by the ayatollahs and got worse than they had is irrelevent to Carter's actions (or better put, inaction).
Are there still paid for weapons sitting in the US that should have been delivered to the Shah's forces before he came west for medical 'aid'?
"Nobody saw iran becoming what it has..."
I find that very hard to believe, Khomeini's theology and politics were not hidden from sight up until he stepped off the plane from France.
"When you stand we will stand with you." These were direct statements to the iranians to get things started. The first was in the SOTU Address in 2004, over three years ago....so far nothing."
THIS I fully agree with. I've posted before that 'student demonstrations' that don't go much beyond occupying the cafeteria cannot achieve results without either (a) the willingness to shed their own blood, or (b) outside intervention such as I believe enabled the Ayatollahs.
I'm not normally a conspiracy theory type, but even more recent history suggests that 'we' are perfectly willing to help the wrong guy when democrats have the wheel.
(Just noticed you spell iran the same way I spell mexico; maybe we both picked it up at Holabird or Huachuca)
OK, please tell me how many Infantry and Armored Divisions this would take and, given the fact that every one that we have is committed somewhere in the world either deployed or re-fitting to be deployed again, where will the estimated 250,000 (minimum) troops come from?
Well, this is obviously one of the problems with the idea that we can fight a World War "on the cheap" isn't it? You don't fight a World War with the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive regime and idealogy of Islam, and think that merely one front in that world war is all it takes to win the entire war. You fight a World War on all the fronts that the enemy is at.
Use your example, previously, of the last World War that the U.S. was in. We had all the population of the U.S. committed to that war. We fought that war on many fronts, at the same time. We got every last person that could help, in there and helping.
I guess it's the difference between winning and losing this war, isn't it? And apparently that's why we're currently losing this war. Too bad, isn't it? And that's probably why it will take those numbers of dead (like you were mentioning before) and another major attack on the U.S. (like a nuclear detonation) before people like you think that we really have to fight a war, because they want to still have their beer and tv and movies at home. It's too bad that people have become like that.
But, I imagine those deaths which are coming will either kill off some of these people, or wake them up into realizing that a World War is in progress.
As far as what it would take, well..., I like the way President Bush thinks about this. He leaves it up to the commanders to say what they need to do a job. What we do is supply it to them. Of course, what we can't do is supply the intelligence or IQ needed to the public to realize these things — as we can abundantly see in these last few posts on this thread. And what we can't do is supply the will to persevere, as we can also see from these posts. It's just too bad that people, here, have gotten so soft and weak.
And please don't give me the tired response that 'we have the best military ever, they can do anything'. I work closely with the Army in a few areas and I know how good they are, how dedicated they are and what they can do. One thing the best military ever cannot do is train the troops be in two places at once.
And I thought that one of the major military doctrines of fighting these kinds of wars was to be able to fight two major and separate wars on different sides of the globe, far removed from each other and yet, still be able to carry them both off at the same time with reserves to spare. Are you saying that we've abandoned this military doctrine now?
Furthermore, this isn't even two separate wars. It's the same World War, and in the same region and on the same border. The border of Iran is the border of Iraq. It's already right there. They've got all the basing and supplies that they need. If they have to bring in more men, then do so. If they do need more, then start bringing it in.
And another benefit to fighting them in Iran and removing the religio-fanatical-government oppressive regime and idealogy of Islam, is that we wouldn't have any of the Iranian interference in Iraq any longer. That would go a long ways to settling things down in Iraq, as the U.S. has already admitted and said that Iran is a major component to the current unrest and attacks in Iraq.
I suppose that you just don't want to fight the World War on all fronts and prefer to do a "one front War" at a time, as opposed to the way we fought and won World War II. And that's the reason why we're losing this war.
Regards,
Star Traveler
---------------------------------------------
You have now lost me. If you had checked my history before preaching as I suggested then you would have found that I have been complaining since day 1 about the need for a bigger military for just this reason. I asked you where the 250,000 troops we would need at a minimum to invade iran (as you insist we do) would come from. Rather than face the real world fact that we don't have them you take the low road and manage to blame me for us losing this war (even though I don't think we are).
I've given you the benefit of the doubt for the last time. From here on I consider you one of those distasteful freepers who assign words and attitudes to others out of your own mind.
You have now lost me. If you had checked my history before preaching as I suggested then you would have found that I have been complaining since day 1 about the need for a bigger military for just this reason. I asked you where the 250,000 troops we would need at a minimum to invade iran (as you insist we do) would come from. Rather than face the real world fact that we don't have them you take the low road and manage to blame me for us losing this war (even though I don't think we are).
I'm not sure why I would have lost you in regards to that statement of mine...
I suppose that you just don't want to fight the World War on all fronts and prefer to do a "one front War" at a time, as opposed to the way we fought and won World War II. And that's the reason why we're losing this war.
You originally made the comparison to World War II in saying how the resistance movements helped in aggravating the enemy. I pointed out how we are now in a World War and that these were many "fronts" in that bigger, very much larger World War. And I pointed out how those resistance movements would not have even done what they did, without the knowledge of the Allies having committed everything they had, and never stopping until they won -- to that effort of winning World War II. This is what made it possible for those resistance fighters to continue to aggravate the enemy.
And then, in pointing out the nature of the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam, I've also shown how they are a world-wide movement, not only in practice (as they are in many countries and cross national boundaries, basically because they are a "government" in and of themselves), but also in "statement" in that they state that it is a fundamental tenet of their idealogy that they will take over the world and put it all under this religio-governmental idealogy, and destroy the other nations' governments in the process.
In addition, it's already been stated many times, and I gave the reference to one such source, where it's shown to be a World War that we are engaged in with the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Islam. And it is stated that these many different places, like Iran, or Iraq or Afghanistan, or the many other places that attacks have occurred are simply fronts in this World wide War.
Therefore, since we were able to launch all our resources and fight on many fronts and since it's been shown how this is a World War against the religio-fanatical-governmental oppressive idealogy of Isalm, and since it's also obvious (from our own government's statements) that Iran is interfering with Iraq and providing materials, training, manpower and bombs and such to Iraq, and since Iran also is developing a nuclear weapon (something that the U.S. and Israel say) -- then it's very obvious that Iran is such "another front" in that World War and should be engaged.
So, if someone doesn't want to go in there and address those attacks by the enemy on that front, it's obvious that they don't consider it to be any front in the war at all. If they did, they would be arguing for putting the resources towards attacking and defeating the enemy on that front. And that front, of Iran, is shown to be causing us considerable trouble just in Iraq, to say nothing about the rest of the Middle East (for which they keep the pot stirred all the time).
As far as the troops needed, let the generals decide on that, once they are given the policy of engaging the enemy there on that front. And whatever we need, then we'll have to get it, in the same way we had to get manpower in World War II. We have a larger population now than we did in World War II, so that shouldn't be a problem. Unless you don't think it should be fought like we did in World War II (but then again, you did bring up World War II yourself, didn't you...).
I've given you the benefit of the doubt for the last time. From here on I consider you one of those distasteful freepers who assign words and attitudes to others out of your own mind.
Well, there is freedom of thought and speech, at least here in America, isn't there? I can't help the ranting and ravings of another person. That's their own choice. Be that as you want to make it in your own mind. Whatever helps you cope...
Regards,
Star Traveler
We Must Attack Iran Before It Gets The Bomb (John Bolton)
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.