Twit.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- First Steps Toward a new Conflict?
First Steps Toward a new Conflict?Follow
EndrilRM does a beautiful job in showing why people who learn foreign policy from video games shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of anything more complicated than a vibrating Playstation controller 
Twit.
Twit.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
If the Iranian governemnt is sending people in to hinder and kill our troops..
isn't that an act of War?
Why aren't we bombing Iran RIGHT NOW? What are we a bunch of PUS5IES!?
/loads gun and shoots ceiling
isn't that an act of War?
Why aren't we bombing Iran RIGHT NOW? What are we a bunch of PUS5IES!?
/loads gun and shoots ceiling
Katie is dumb. Fair enough?
Edited, Jan 29th 2007 7:51am by Katie
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Its not like we can **** off the middle east much more at this point.
How about giving iraqis uniform to the u.s. soldiers when they fight iranians. Then leave Iraq and deny everything.
How about... NO! How about dressing up our soldiers as Venezuela soldiers and then letting Venezuela and Iran duke it out? I'm all for that.
The One and Only Katie wrote:
Iran is our equal in airforce at least.
Globalsecurity.org wrote:
Iran imported surveillance radars from the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. The radar can detect targets up to 300 km away and is now part of Iran's air defense system. But even with China's help, Iran's air defenses remained porous, perhaps on par with Iraqi capabilities demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf war. The launchers are scattered too widely prevent relatively rapid suppression. Iran lacks the low altitude radar coverage, overlapping radar network, command and control integration, sensors, and resistance to jamming and electronic countermeasures needed for an effective air defense net. The defenses operate a point defense mode.
As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.
As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Your right, Katie to quit taking the stupid pills. I retract what I said.
Has Iran ever directly attacked anyone? save for ancient Greece>?
Quote:
Has Iran ever directly attacked anyone? save for ancient Greece>?
Ummm...No. Not that I know of, and certainly not in the last 100 years or so. But thats hardly the point. The very fact that they wear funny hats, teach their children to hate the west and have novelty facial hair makes it obvious to anyone (with a G in their name), that it is only a matter of time before they do.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Oh, wait after reading those complaints about the Iraqis not being able to control themselves, I came up with a great idea...
Okay, so maybe this isn't all fuzzy and friendly, but I think it would be functional. You see, the problem is that they don't just hate the West, but they also hate eachother basically along religious denominational lines. Really it's probably like 10 times as bad as any liberal/conservative or democrat/republican animosity here in the U.S. So yeah, they're having problems getting along and getting any sort of democracy done because not everyone there wants democracy because that requires comprimise and the religious zealots don't do comprimise (much like over here).
So what you need is an absolute governing body, a sort of monarchy if you will, a single individual heavy-handedly ensuring that the countries stability is maintained. Now mind you, this person would have to be pretty damn fierce, because they would have to ensure that the populace is scared pissless to step out of line, and to ensure that any religious squabbles are quashed before they escalate and destabilize the country. I hate to say it but they may have to resort to capital measures, just to make sure everyone knows that they mean business.
Now granted, a person like this is not going to be loved. Not by their own country, and not by most of the rest of the world that doesn't have a deep understanding of the social dynamic of this other country. So we would want to make sure the rest of the world feels safe with this person in place. Maybe we could limit their military power, maybe we could have regulators from a multinational organization go in every now and then to check and make sure that this person isn't stepping too far out of bounds, and maybe we could impose some sort of military blockade around the country (a "no-fly" zone if you will) to make sure that uneasy neighbors to this country feel safer.
Oh... wait... they had that. That was that Saddam Hussein guy, right?
Do a little reading... Who helped get Saddam into power in the first place? (USA) Who backed Saddam against Iran because we weren't cool with Iran? (USA) Who had a good part in these actions? (George Bush I) Who went in with bad info and f###ed up the situation beyond all recognition? (George Bush II)
Edited, Jan 31st 2007 4:16pm by Ridana
Okay, so maybe this isn't all fuzzy and friendly, but I think it would be functional. You see, the problem is that they don't just hate the West, but they also hate eachother basically along religious denominational lines. Really it's probably like 10 times as bad as any liberal/conservative or democrat/republican animosity here in the U.S. So yeah, they're having problems getting along and getting any sort of democracy done because not everyone there wants democracy because that requires comprimise and the religious zealots don't do comprimise (much like over here).
So what you need is an absolute governing body, a sort of monarchy if you will, a single individual heavy-handedly ensuring that the countries stability is maintained. Now mind you, this person would have to be pretty damn fierce, because they would have to ensure that the populace is scared pissless to step out of line, and to ensure that any religious squabbles are quashed before they escalate and destabilize the country. I hate to say it but they may have to resort to capital measures, just to make sure everyone knows that they mean business.
Now granted, a person like this is not going to be loved. Not by their own country, and not by most of the rest of the world that doesn't have a deep understanding of the social dynamic of this other country. So we would want to make sure the rest of the world feels safe with this person in place. Maybe we could limit their military power, maybe we could have regulators from a multinational organization go in every now and then to check and make sure that this person isn't stepping too far out of bounds, and maybe we could impose some sort of military blockade around the country (a "no-fly" zone if you will) to make sure that uneasy neighbors to this country feel safer.
Oh... wait... they had that. That was that Saddam Hussein guy, right?
Do a little reading... Who helped get Saddam into power in the first place? (USA) Who backed Saddam against Iran because we weren't cool with Iran? (USA) Who had a good part in these actions? (George Bush I) Who went in with bad info and f###ed up the situation beyond all recognition? (George Bush II)
Edited, Jan 31st 2007 4:16pm by Ridana
Recent Visitors: 313
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (313)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- First Steps Toward a new Conflict?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC