Obama announces troops coming home from Iraq.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

The odds of Iran successfully attacking Israel is about the same as Canada successfully attacking the US.

I agree with you (damn, where is my calender ). The key is not if they can do it successfully, but if they can do it. The Iranians have a fanatical belief in their infallibility bolstered by their religious fanaticism. During the Iran-Iraq war, there were volunteer units who linked arms and walked across Iraqi minefields clearing the path for vehicles and other soldiers.

I am certain that the crazy mullahs in Tehran believe that they would easily destroy Israel because, according to them, it is the will of Allah. - you cannot argue with a fanatic or a 2 year old.

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Quite a few folks want us to abandon Afghansitan the same way.

So many love to compare Iraq to Vietnam. A cursory examination of facts shows them to be incredibly different.

Pete

I agree. Many people make these claims simply to help them score political rewards. Joe Biden called the Iraq winnable in 2005, and proclaimed that the war was lost shortly there after. My did his tune change when he became Vice President.

In Afghanistan, both the USA and USSR had to power to remove Taliban (and Mujaheddin in case of USSR). Although the USSR operated far more ruthlessly, they lacked the political will to do so. The USA also lacks the political will. Forget winning "hearts and minds", because these stone-age people will never learn. Also stop paying off these corrupt leaders like Karzai. Too much money, too many lives, and too many resources have been squandered there. It Karzai and his friends start paying for the cost of the operation. They have huge lithium deposits that they are letting China (who never contributed to Afghanistan) exclusively mine.

What would happen if this Karzai assumes "room temperature". The next Afghan leader that says that they will back Pakistan against the USA, also assumes ambient temperature. Eventually, they will learn or run out of people. OOOOPS!

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

What would happen if this Karzai assumes "room temperature". The next Afghan leader that says that they will back Pakistan against the USA, also assumes ambient temperature. Eventually, they will learn or run out of people. OOOOPS!

Chalabbi is waiting in the wings.

[Bigerik]

Btw, how many wars have the crazy Mullahs started in the last 30 years?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Good grief! You don't eat raw fish? I concur with Finn, Maguro is one of the best. You sure wouldn't make a Hollywood lawyer with that culinary predjudice.

Thank God for small favors. I'm pretty sassified with the working folks here in Kansas City. They have never complained when we bring ribs in for lunch.

I will confess to prejudice in this instance. In my defense, it is a rather benign prejudice.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Btw, how many wars have the crazy Mullahs started in the last 30 years?

The ones in Pakistan attacked India twice. The ones in Iran, through their proxies in Lebanon, attack Israel twice. These very same ones, supply Hamas with heavy weapons so they can fire their 122mm rockets with ball-bearing encased warheads into Israel on a routine basis. These same Iranian ones have also, through their proxies, attacked US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Do you need more examples of "crazy mullahs"?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

The ones in Pakistan attacked India twice. The ones in Iran, through their proxies in Lebanon, attack Israel twice. These very same ones, supply Hamas with heavy weapons so they can fire their 122mm rockets with ball-bearing encased warheads into Israel on a routine basis. These same Iranian ones have also, through their proxies, attacked US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Do you need more examples of "crazy mullahs"?

The military, not the Mullahs, control Pakistan.

As for whether Iran's actions in Syria, the Occupied Territories, or Iraq/Afghanistan can be considered "starting a war" per Bigerik's question, I don't think they meet that threshold. Are they antagonistic to Israel and favorably disposed to other Shia's? Yes. Have they started wars? No.

Missed twice, KG.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The military, not the Mullahs, control Pakistan.

As for whether Iran's actions in Syria, the Occupied Territories, or Iraq/Afghanistan can be considered "starting a war" per Bigerik's question, I don't think they meet that threshold. Are they antagonistic to Israel and favorably disposed to other Shia's? Yes. Have they started wars? No.

Missed twice, KG.

Of course it doesn't meet the "threshold". Nothing ever will. That is why I specifically mentioned "proxies". Iran has been building itself into the regional hegimon since the Shah's overthrow in 1979....

And yes, Mullahs do control Pakistan. While the military is in official control, the mullahs control the mood of the population and whip them into a frenzy. Unlike the Turkish military, which has a secular history, the Pakistani military does not. They are in effect, an army of the Mullahs. So yes, the mullahs have the real power in Pakistan?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

And yes, Mullahs do control Pakistan. While the military is in official control, the mullahs control the mood of the population and whip them into a frenzy. Unlike the Turkish military, which has a secular history, the Pakistani military does not. They are in effect, an army of the Mullahs. So yes, the mullahs have the real power in Pakistan?

Wrong again, KG. The military controls Pakistan's strategic policies. You seem to have a habit of doubling down on bad arguments and incorrect assertions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/op...ntainment.html

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Wrong again, KG. The military controls Pakistan's strategic policies. You seem to have a habit of doubling down on bad arguments and incorrect assertions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/op...ntainment.html

You're not seeing the big picture. I'm sorry, but you're not.

--- the military loyal to religion ---

In Pakistan, the military (just like in Iran, but to a lesser degree) is beholden to religion. What the mullahs preach at the Mosque on Friday is the strategic policy on Monday. In Iran, it is strategic policy on Saturday (or even Friday afternoon). Yes, they are responsible for strategic direction - you are quite right. This direction is, however, directly influenced, by the powerful mullahs. The Pakistani Army's intelligence service, ISI, is firmly in the hands of fundamentalist Muslims who take their ques from the mosque.

--- military loyal to military command hierarchy ---

In Egypt (which will probably slowly change with a drift to religion), Jordan, and to some degree in Saudi Arabia, the military is loyal to itself (not the state). In Libya, the military was loyal to the dictator (who was a part of the military), same as in Syria.

--- military royal to the state ---

This is the case in Turkey, were the military has a loyalty not to the government, but to the state itself. Lebanon is another example, although there are large militant factions....

------------------------
You should really think about these things, before "doubling down" on the basis of compartmentalized doctrine.

The West Germans had a policy of marginalization against the GDR... under Adenauer - Kurt Kessinger it was the Hallstein Doctrine. Under Brandt it was Ostpolitik. Under Schmidt and Kohl it was Deutschlandpolitik. All appeared different, but in effect they were very similar. They marginalized the GDR, they just did it in different ways. Using different methods. The Ostpolitik, appeared to be a gentle approach, but it was based in brutal Realpolitik just like the Hallstein theory....

The reasons for the collapse of the GDR in November of 1989, had far more to do with the marginalization policies of Bonn, than Glasnost and Perestroika... If you only take a compartmentalized view, you will never see the relationships, but just the perceived impact.