Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 246 Comments
THE TIMELINE IS STILL A SUCKY IDEA
"I’m not making any thing up."
"Unfortunatley many of them lack the imagination to think about these things."
Think about what these two phrases of yours mean here.
"As to how any Iranian plans would be implemented, I think I partially explained how they could carry out their goals in the previos post, however, for a detailed plan one would need to ask the Iranian leadership."
*sigh* Who could probably tell you about their intergalactic fleet of ninja equipped battleships. I give up.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 26.07.2008 @ 01:11
"You suggest the British and the Israelis would come to the aid of the US. I don’t think so. Israel might be willing but they are a little busy with their own issues right now. ...I don’t think Britian is willing to come to the aid of the US in this regard, however, they should be. The goal of the Iranians, as one Iranian leader said a few years ago with regards to Britian “we need to take it over.” They are more than capable of doing this. "
See, more nonsense. You failed utterly to explain how the Iranians prevent themselves from being turned into ash by our respective ballistic submarine fleets. You fail to explain how the Israelis are prevented from responding, or why. You fail to explain why you think that the UK won't respond in kind to an attack on one of its closest allies. You conjure up hundreds of thousands of IRG fanatics infiltrating your country and you imagine that the Iranian leadership is openly declaring that he wants to invade and "take over" Britain.
This is all fantasy.
You're just making this up from a paranoid base. I don't expect you to see that because that's what happens when you invest in paranoid fantasies, but please, just try to get some sort of perpective.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.07.2008 @ 10:14
"I made no mention of the rapture or of alien abductions. i find it curious that you did."
I was using them to give some indication of the absurdity of your Iranian Invasion fears.
"The Iranian attack could come before American officails even have a chance to respond. "
Quite apart from hoards of IRG members wielding nukes and dirty bombs enough to take out the EMP shielded command and control system in a first strike to end all first strikes (how many of these nukes would they need do you think? Are any of them bunker busters?) lets just try to deal with on of the many glaring holes.
How do the Iranian hordes plan to prevent Iran being turned into a cinder by US ballistic missile submarines? You're not going to tell me that the Iranian sub fleet (such as it is) is going to disable the US sub fleet in one short sharp engagement are you? Or maybe the crafty Iranians have already substituted their own crews for the US crews?
For that matter how do they plan to deal with the obvious retalliation that would come from US allies such as Britain and Israel? Would Israel sit back and think "Oy Vey, we'll leave them to it, after all we wouldn't be next would we?"
Or do thay have similar armies of infiltrators hiding, nuclear armed, in the UK and Israel?
Honestly, you can't see what utter nonsense this is?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.07.2008 @ 06:18
"You completely ridicule and dismiss out of hand a very real concern that many Americans have."
Only because it is a ridiculous concern. If a majority of Americans were concerned that they might be abducted by aliens then I would also ridicule that. In fact, I feel no concern at all in ridiculing the idea that millions of people will be raptured any time soon.
Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, and the idea that Iran will invade the US (With what flotilla? Where will the beachheads be? How will they supress the armed population? What would stop the US from nuking Iran long before the troop carriers even approach the Atlantic?) is ridiculous and absurdly paranoid.
If you don't think that it is ridiculous then please, feel free to explain how this invasion will take place. Not in vast amounts of detail, just a simple plan.
And no, setting off a nuke in LA is not an invasion. Even if they had any and were completely suicidal, it would be an attack. (yes, yes, a terrible attack with vast loss of life, but still not an invasion).
"The Iranians are perfectly capable and willing to pull it off without their assistance."
Just talk me through how we get from where we are now to an Iranian occupation government in the US. With or without Russian and Chinese help.
When you can't imagine an even vaguely plausible scenario, please consider whether the fear of an Iranian invasion of the US may, just may, be rampant paranoia.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 24.07.2008 @ 07:22
"Stopping the Iranian invasion of the US should be our top priority. I actually think the main targets for Iran would be the major cities and probably not Kansas."
That's just bizarre. Really, Gobsmacking.
You believe that?
Wow.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 23.07.2008 @ 16:47
"I doubt the US government or Centcom had any thing to with the sudden change the Iraqi government made. "
The Iraqi government hasn't made a sudden change.
"But since there is no benefit in opposing a timeline it seems likely to me that the PM made a mistake in what he said the first time around since he needed for his office to issue a correction."
No, there is no benefit in opposing a timeline if your goal is to get all US forces out of Iraq. In fact, you will notice that if the US goal was to get its forces out of Iraq then events as they happened make no sense whatsoever. If, on the other hand, you start from the assumption that the goal is to keep US forces in Iraq indefinitely, then the events make perfect sense.
It is, in fact, a lovely test of the proposition.
Hypothesis : The US wants to get its forces out of Iraq.
Test : Malaki suggests that they should get out in about 18 months.
Predicted result for hypothesis : Bush admin hails this as a victory and starts getting troops out.
Actual result : Hectic diplomacy, rushed denials and general tomfoolery.
Conclusion : The original hypothesis was wrong and the Bush admin wants to keep troops in Iraq.
"In short, I find no incentive for the Iraqis to say that they support a 16 month time for withdrawl and to say they are misunderstood very soon after."
"The Iraqis", "They". Remember what actually happened. The Iraqi PM said something that his masters didn't like. Then his masters leaned on him. Then an Iraqi spokesman said something that wasn't a denial but did muddy the waters a little claiming mistranslation. Then the tape of the interview was released and confirmed the original translation.
"Iran is currently an implacable enemy of the US. This is a potentially dangerous situation for the US. "
Because what? The Iranian hordes will invade Kansas?
"The main goal should be for Iraq to be an ally in the war against Islamic terrorists. If it should work in tandem with Iran in supporting Islamic terrorism against the United States or its interests, I do not want it to be stable."
Out of interest, what terrorist attacks has Iran carried out against the US recently?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 23.07.2008 @ 04:36
"An Anbar Awakening without the surge? "
Yes, since it started before the surge, and since the surge troops did not go to Anbar. However, let's not mess about, improvements in Iraqi security have come about because of a complete change of direction in counterinsurgency strategy brought about largely by a competent commander. Supporting ex-Bathists rather than fighting them has paid dividends. The victory of the Shia in Bagdhad also helped to push the Sunni towards the US for protection, a classic example of playing one tribe against the other. And, as I said years ago, without the need to ally with the Jihadis as "enemies of my enemy" against the US, the Sunni tribes slaughtered them in short order.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 23.07.2008 @ 04:06
"To the best of my knowledge it was an Iraqi government spoksman named Ali al-Dabbagh who said that the Iraqi PM’s statements were “misunderstood and mistranslated.”"
Via CENTCOM apparantely.
"The bottom line is there is no political benefit for anyone within the Iraqi government to come out later and make these statements. Furthermore, the Bush administration does not have the leverage within the US government or with the Iraqi government to get them to make a retraction or clarification such as this."
No, but it may have enough influence with al-Dabbagh to get him to muddy the waters a bit with a vague and meaningless retraction. Of course, the translator was Al-Malaki's and they released the tape of the interview for inspection as well.
The target of such exercises is, of course, you. The point is to sow doubt in your mind as to what the truth is, with the rather arrogant assumption that you won't investigate it yourself.
"I hope the translator did not make a mistake. "
Your hopes are fulfilled.
"If so, it seems he’s given the US a face saving way to withdraw. If so, this all Bush and the Administration need. If so, we could look for all American and Coaltion forces to be out of the country very soon."
Well, since it seems thatthe US government went to some trouble to get him to change what he said, I would say that, for some unknown reason, the Bush administration would rather keep its massive US garrison in the oil hearlands of the Middle East, rather than removing it. I can't imagine for the life of me why that would be.
"I think they will work Iran and have worked with Iran when it suits their interests, but they want to be a fully soverign and independent nation."
I absolutely agree. Any Iranians who think that they are earning a colony is making a major mistake. Of course, there is little indication that theywant anything other than a very close relationship.
"If they wish to ally with Iran, the Iraqi government should be destroyed but the Americans will not be the ones to do it unless ordered to by the Saudis or the EU."
The rest of your post sounded reasonable but here I get confused. You think that a Pro-Iranian Iraqi government should be destroyed? After all the effort the US has gone through to put one together?
And since when did the Saudis tell the US what to do? And the EU? What the EU get to order the US around now?
The reality is that the Iraqi government will be more stable as an ally of the Iranians that as one of the US. In the world today stability should be the goal, not dominance and instability.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 22.07.2008 @ 14:13
"There would seem to be no reason for his office to come out later and say he was misunderstood. The translator must have made a mistake."
If you look where the "correction" came from you might be able to work it out. The long and the short of it is that the translator did not make a mistake.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 22.07.2008 @ 11:03
It still depends on whether your goals are to leave a large US military presense in Iraq for the long term or not.
"The little Iranian loving Shia Sh*t must love that. If things start getting rough again, all he has to do is cry for help and Obama and the American Army come running."
So, what are you going to suggest? US forces stay in Iraq longer than the Iraqi's elected representatives want them to?
That little "Iranian loving Shia Sh*t" is in charge because he was the most pro-US politician able to take on the job that could be found. The strategic reality is that the war was lost ages ago when that because clear.
Obama's goal seems to be (in addition to winning the election) getting out with that as the situation rather than fighting on in vain hopes of producing something better. Do you think that staying another 10 years will produce an Iraqi government filled with people other than Islamic Iraqi nationalists or Iranian loving sh*ts?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 22.07.2008 @ 10:38
