• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria

How did you predict Iraq and Afghanistan to go, Nostradamus?

I predicted there would be quick military victories followed by an arduous rebuilding process. Of course, I was much too optimistic about the post-invasion strategy the administration would adopt. Either way,two wrongs don't make a right, and bungling the post-invasion process doesn't justify throwing our hands up in the air and pulling out completely.
 
I'd like to think I'm pretty well versed in history. I'd advise you to read Churchill's six volume history of the Second World War, any history of the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna, and hell, throw in some Thucydides while you're at it. You could not be more correct. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. History has been repeating itself over and over, and we still seem to be incapable of learning its lessons.

The history you support repeating started with us putting the Shah in power in Iran. Then we put Diem in charge of Viet Nam.

You are still supporting our invading Iraq to take out a dictator we helped put in place and armed for a massive war.

Your concept has proven to be an abject failure that cost the US tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and made the world dubious of every action we take.

Your belief system has harmed nation greatly over the past sixty years.
 
TR1982 fighting for the stupidest post ever posted on these Boards award.

No joke. Sometimes I forget how foolish he can be. His "military men don't like war" bit about McCain had me laugh.
 
The history you support repeating started with us putting the Shah in power in Iran. Then we put Diem in charge of Viet Nam.

You are still supporting our invading Iraq to take out a dictator we helped put in place and armed for a massive war.

Your concept has proven to be an abject failure that cost the US tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and made the world dubious of every action we take.

Your belief system has harmed nation greatly over the past sixty years.

At least the "version" of history I "support" isn't completely inaccurate. We didn't put Diem in power, the French did. We had Diem removed from power and replaced him with Thieu. We never "put the shah in power". He was already in power, we just had Mosaddegh removed from the Prime Minister's office. Regardless, the coup wasnt what lead to the Iranian Revolution, which was over twenty five years later. You should try knowing what you're talking about every now and then.
 
You are and have been a piece of work, being the "shah" and being in charge of the government are dramatically different, We overthrew the justly elected government in Iran. The people of Iran still hold this against us.

The concept of forcing our version of government on an unwilling people has been proven not to work.

Both sides here disagree with your totally disproven concept. You are out of touch with political reality.
 
I'd just really like to hear a cogent counter argument. So far the best you guys have come up with is that I'm "stupid", "foolish", and "out of touch".
 
I'd just really like to hear a cogent counter argument. So far the best you guys have come up with is that I'm "stupid", "foolish", and "out of touch".

I never said that. I just think there is nothing to be gained from getting bogged down in another war. I have not seen a scenario in the last 60 years where our intervention has been particularly beneficial, especially in the Middle Easy. Syria is not Adolph Hitler's Germany.
 
You are and have been a piece of work, being the "shah" and being in charge of the government are dramatically different, We overthrew the justly elected government in Iran. The people of Iran still hold this against us.

The concept of forcing our version of government on an unwilling people has been proven not to work.

Both sides here disagree with your totally disproven concept. You are out of touch with political reality.

How many people who would have been old enough to understand those events are still alive? The Iranians have a much bigger problem with us over our opposition to their nuclear program, support for Israel, and support for Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War than something that happened a lifetime ago.
 
Your position has never worked in the real world.

There was a legitimate justification for going into Iraq and unless we wanted to become an imperialist, occupying force, we had no choice but to leave when asked to do so.

The only things staying would have done is piss off the Arabs throughout the region more each day of our immoral occupation and delaying the inevitable sectarian violence that started when we would leave.

There has never been a shred of evidence they would become more democratic.
 
How many people who would have been old enough to understand those events are still alive? The Iranians have a much bigger problem with us over our opposition to their nuclear program, support for Israel, and support for Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War than something that happened a lifetime ago.

About 12.5 million or more Iranians would have been 18 or older during the 1979 revolution. That's about 17% of the population.
 
I never said that. I just think there is nothing to be gained from getting bogged down in another war. I have not seen a scenario in the last 60 years where our intervention has been particularly beneficial, especially in the Middle Easy. Syria is not Adolph Hitler's Germany.

And I thank you,. You have been the only one actually willing to engage in a constructive manner. Syria is not Adolf Hitler's Germany. But Iran certainly has the capability to be, and has certainly demonstrated that ambition. In 1932, Germany was on the verge of becoming a failed state, with an active military of only 100,000, no air force to speak of, no navy, no access to important strategic resources like oil, coal, and iron. Ten years later, they had conquered nearly the entire European continent. We have strived tirelessly to advance the cause of freedom around the world since World War II, with some hiccups and mistakes along the way. But generally speaking, we have been successful. By sitting idly by now, we risk a major resurgence of the forces of authoritarianism. They are down, but they aren't out.
 
Last edited:
How many people who would have been old enough to understand those events are still alive? The Iranians have a much bigger problem with us over our opposition to their nuclear program, support for Israel, and support for Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War than something that happened a lifetime ago.

During the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran lost 1,000,000 people. That's equivalent to the US losing over 6,000,000 people in a war that ended twenty-five years ago.

When you add the number of serious injuries that 1,000,000 becomes much bigger. To say most Iranians forget how the Americans armed the people who killed their family members is ludicrous.

Then you add that to getting of their PM and you multi-generational hatred of US meddling in Iran.

It's batshit crazy to not admit this.
 
And I thank you,. You have been the only one actually willing to engage in a constructive manner. Syria is not Adolf Hitler's Germany. But Iran certainly has the capability to be, and has certainly demonstrated that ambition. In 1932, Germany was on the verge of becoming a failed state, with an active military of only 100,000, no air force to speak of, no navy, no access to important strategic resources like oil, coal, and iron. Ten years later, they had conquered nearly the entire European continent. We have strived tirelessly to advance the cause of freedom around the world since World War II, with some hiccups and mistakes along the way. But generally speaking, we have been successful. By sitting idly by, now, we a major resurgence of the forces of authoritarianism. They are down, but they aren't out.

Nuclear weapons have changed the world. This is not the 1930's. We have the weapons to literally make Iran cease to exist. Iran will never have an arsenal like that. They will never come close.
 
Nuclear weapons have changed the world. This is not the 1930's. We have the weapons to literally make Iran cease to exist. Iran will never have an arsenal like that. They will never come close.

And? Will we ever use those weapons to prevent Iran from controlling the Middle East, when we are well aware that Iran has an ally with an equally menacing arsenal capable of making us vanish? No. And don't you think Iran knows that?
 
Let's see we orchestrated the 53 coup, opposed the 79 revolution and funding their enemies who killed over 1,000,000 Iranians (including using chemical weapons we gave the materials for) from 80-88. Yep they don't remember.
 
You don't think adults during the 1979 revolution would have been informed of and aware of the 1953 coup?

I'm sure they were. But for one, I don't accept the premise that the 1953 coup was the primary cause of the revolution. And second, I'm sure that plenty of Iranians now are aware of our role in the coup. More recent events are much more significant in their national consciousness.
 
For Christ's sake. It is statements like these that get us into situations like these in the first place. Do you really think that McCain, who had his fingernails pulled out by the North Vietnamese, just likes war? You aren't qualified to call him a warmonger. Guess who was called a warmonger prior to World War II? Winston Churchill. Franklin Delano Roosvelt. Anthony Eden. Alarmists all of them. As it turns out McCain and Graham are just two of a few people on the Hill who understand grand strategy.

This situation has been bungled from the start. It started with signals from the administration that we were no longer going to be concerned with what happened in the Middle East. Withdrawing from Iraq and leaving behind no military presence, then unilaterally declaring victory in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to their own devices in 2014. We repeatedly let Iran cross red line after red line with its nuclear program, and then let Syria cross its red line with regard to chemical weapons. All bark, no bite. If we had gotten involved with Syria much earlier, we could have declared a no fly zone, and guided the opposition. Now the situation is desperate enough and the rebels are organized enough that we can have no say in who gets what. The Russians have deployed S-300s, so a no fly zone is out. If we had finished Assad while he was down, the likelihood of further Iranian escalation would have been minimal. Now we are on the verge of being dealt a strategic defeat, and barring actual military intervention, which I doubt the President has the balls for, the Middle East will fall firmly into Iranian/Russian sphere of influence. Which means more diplomatic hostility from states that relied on US power, like Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the Gulf oil states, rising oil prices, and a nuclear Iran, which will have achieved full regional hegemony. This of course assumes that this conflict does not turn into a regional war between the Sunni bloc/Israel and the Shia bloc/Russia, which seems to me to be the more likely scenario if the United States does not quickly demonstrate that it will not tolerate an Iranian dominated region. And none of this is even considering the impact all this is having on East Asian relations. China is watching very closely. What do you think all this bluffing suggests to them about our military commitments to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea?

I'll never understand why the isolationist viewpoint still holds any sway in this country. Do you really believe that if we just sit back and hope everything works out for us it will? The last seven decades of world stability, burgeoning freedom, and expanding global commerce were bought with American, British, and French lives. Retreating within our borders now will make all of that go to waste. You have to work to make the world a better place, especially if you're the world's strongest free democracy. A hundred years of leading by example got us the bloodiest century in human history. And if we turn back to that path now, the 21st century won't be all that different.

So just to be clear, you are blaming violence in the early part of the 20th century on American Isolationism in the 19th century but completely denying the responsibility the policies of the 20th century have had on 21st century violence? You cannot blame the 20th century AND 21st century violence on isolationism. The issues currently occurring in the Middle East are a direct result of the 20th century intervention in that region and to say otherwise is a bunch of bullshit. You can try to say getting out of Iraq too soon gave Iran more power. You want to know what really gave Iran more power? Us going into Iraq in the first place. Saddam was one bad MFer but he was one bad MFer that Iran wasn't looking to fuck around with. By intervening, we just gave any hardliners about Western influence more fuel for their philosophical fire. It is mind numbing to me that you can simultaneously (and in some ways correctly) hold American Isolationism responsible for violence in the 20th century AND (this one being incorrect) violence in the 21st century since the 20th century was (as you acknowledge) well marked with examples of American intervention. Simple fact is Iran has gained FAR more power due to our policies of the last half century than they have because of isolationist principles in the 1800s and a "movement' back towards that in the last decade or so.
 
Back
Top