An actual U.S. special forces attack inside Syria

[hammelman]

Don't forget that our presidents and their ideas leave every 4 years. Iran will acquire a nuke, i think in the minds of most of the people here its not a matter of if, but when. I dont think bombing Iran will make them anything like Libya, not in any sense whatsoever. Iran has a sense of identity that far transcends years and time. They can literally wait out any administration, or nation they want. With this national identity of theirs, all they have to do is bide their time, it could be 10 years, or 20, or 30 but they will remember what they want, and they will have it. I think Meade perhaps my opinion of your fundamental misunderstanding about these people (not just the Iranians) is they're not going anywhere, they've already arrived. Eventually there will be a draw down of American troops in the region, but these countries and their leaders will still be there. We could bomb a 1,000 buildings and kill 10,000 scientists, but they will still be there, and will still have their blue prints for weaponizing uranium.

Currently all we're doing is strengthening the Iranian position, we've given them a mission, and an enemy. As a nation we have to come to an agreement of how we are to deal with these people once we've left them to do their business. We have to decide what kind of terms we want to be on with these people when we pull our troops out. Are we going to wag our fingers at them and tell them no, launch sf raids into their territory when they get out of line, or are we going to trust in diplomacy and see what comes of it? I don't pretend to know the answer, but i know that just sending more and more troops over there or bombing more targets is not a solution. Eventually we won't be able to sustain it. Look at the economy, people are starting to be laid off at my work, do you think this nation will let its treasure bleed away for much longer at a time like this? Nope, not going to happen.

[Runaway!!!]

Steave

Ohh, so close. You nearly gave us a definition of a certain word. Why can't you just say it? It's on the tip of my tounge. Now I remember, CORPORATISM.

[meade95]

Don't forget that our presidents and their ideas leave every 4 years. Iran will acquire a nuke, i think in the minds of most of the people here its not a matter of if, but when. I dont think bombing Iran will make them anything like Libya, not in any sense whatsoever. Iran has a sense of identity that far transcends years and time. They can literally wait out any administration, or nation they want. With this national identity of theirs, all they have to do is bide their time, it could be 10 years, or 20, or 30 but they will remember what they want, and they will have it. I think Meade perhaps my opinion of your fundamental misunderstanding about these people (not just the Iranians) is they're not going anywhere, they've already arrived. Eventually there will be a draw down of American troops in the region, but these countries and their leaders will still be there. We could bomb a 1,000 buildings and kill 10,000 scientists, but they will still be there, and will still have their blue prints for weaponizing uranium.

Currently all we're doing is strengthening the Iranian position, we've given them a mission, and an enemy. As a nation we have to come to an agreement of how we are to deal with these people once we've left them to do their business. We have to decide what kind of terms we want to be on with these people when we pull our troops out. Are we going to wag our fingers at them and tell them no, launch sf raids into their territory when they get out of line, or are we going to trust in diplomacy and see what comes of it? I don't pretend to know the answer, but i know that just sending more and more troops over there or bombing more targets is not a solution. Eventually we won't be able to sustain it. Look at the economy, people are starting to be laid off at my work, do you think this nation will let its treasure bleed away for much longer at a time like this? Nope, not going to happen.

Don't agree - I see my Libya route being much more likely - And they do not have "time" to wait others out - Set them back 10 years and the demographics alone of their own country continue to work against the hard-line Mullahs...(and the know this). The realties of freedom and self-worth spreading to their neigbors / realtives will only further weaken the hard-liner types.....

No, time is not on the side of Iran and those hardline elements within it -

It is absolutely crazy to suggest by bringing freedom to surround Iran (and their younger demographic seeing this).....that by being logistically capable now of hitting targets throughout the ME (with boots on the ground)....by having over 7 years of direct, daily 24/7 relationships with those throughout Iraq / Stan........by building the most extensive Databases of people within this region and with now having the most battle tested and years of combat experienced force in the world........ That somehow this is strengthening Iran's position. That is too funny. Darn are some people grasphing at straws to try and deny reality....

[hammelman]

Let's take a look at Libya vs Iran.

Libya has a population of 6,173,579 vs Iran which has a population of 65,875,224. Libya has a 1.83m work force where Iran has a work force of 28.7m. Libya's arable land (land for farming) is 1.03% of its total land mass where Iran's is 9.78%. Libya sits in a barren wasteland in North Africa of strategically no value to the world. Iran sits directly above the Straight of Hormuz where 20% of the worlds oil flows through everyday (40% of shipped oil). Iran has a standing army of at least 500k and several hundred more thousands reserve troops (most likely if we did a full land invasion they would cave quickly, much like Iraq) I'm sure you already knew all these things as this information is attainable through the CIA fact book posted online at (www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/)

We have one dictator of a country of 6m people (less than the population of New York City) that we got to change his ways because he no arable land, 95% of his export economy is oil, his *current* unemployment rate is upwards of 30% and his country sits in the middle of a desert. How did we do this? We used international sanctions and then we ignored him. On the other hand we have a country that a population 10 times greater, with 10% of the world's proven petroleum reserves which sits in a strategic location in a strategic part of the world, has a real army with real weapons and real potential.

I realize that Iran is run by a bunch of despots claiming to get messages from god. I also realize that fundamentally Iranians have nothing against the people of America or its surrogates - including in my opinion Israel (don't quote Ahmadinejad, he's merely the face of the Ayatollah's and i believe has very little real power, and he is just playing a shell game) This freedom you talk about in the ME is not real freedom, we jammed it down their throat literally at the barrel end of a gun. Real freedom is people taking up arms on their own and installing their own leaders. Sure France helped us with men and weapons in our own revolution, but when the fighting was over their troops left and it was decided amongst the people in this country what would go. Currently in Stan and Iraq they are run by puppets, not people of free will, puppets. Sure they voted for them. I vote every four years and when the power that be doesn't agree with my vote the electoral college or the supreme court installs the next president.

Iran is not just going to change anytime soon. I've been hearing for years that Iran is on the brink, that their middle class and educated elite are going to stand up and bring down the Ayatollah's. I doubt it, every time they have a riot at Tehran University the government sends in pro-government supporters to beat down the protesters. This is not going to change anytime soon. Sure the Iranian economy is in the dump and people are protesting new taxes, but that doesn't mean that the country is going to miraculously change anytime soon. If anything the Iranians will turtle up because of the now rightly perceived threats by the countries directly around them, and the world at large. Every time we threaten to bomb them they go Aha! This is why we need the bomb! Because when they have the bomb we lose our bargaining chips. Look at North Korea, the most worthless country in the world, they got the bomb and everything changed in our demeanor towards them. No more threatening, no more harassment, now appeasement. We made a deal with the North Koreans, blow up your nuke plant and we'll feed and heat your people - but besides that there is nothing else we can do, because we know they have the bomb. The same i think will inevitably go for the Iranians, we need to give them incentives to not be pariahs.

As i stated before, they will get the bomb, no question. There is nothing we can do to stop them. The question is how are going to deal with it when they do? I think you and the other hawks will be quite surprised how this all turns out. I think this whole notion of bomb first, ask questions later has been dis-proven. Why? We can bomb all we want, and destroy the institutions of a country, but then we have to bring something back much greater than the beast before it. If you look at Stan, sure we're winning the ground war, much like we did in Vietnam - and you know how that went (I'm not saying its going to end up like Saigon at the end of the war, i don't see that as a possibility). Its one thing to have limited strikes in countries that cannot possibly retaliate and mess with our interests, its quite another thing to threaten countries that can actually effect change, and in the most drastic of ways. Think about it, i await your most educated response.

[abdecken5]

As we all know, the oil companies have no incentive to rid themselves of the most profitable product on the face of this Earth until there is a rival product to it. And nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that such a product exists. So they've got a monopolistic advantage that will not be broken by natural market forces. Monopolies are bad for economies.

Steve

very well put. There is another industry that also has a big hand in government, credit to sfhand for mentioning this.

The U.S. would do well to heed General/President Eisenhower's farewell address re: the military industrial complex

I fear, for reasons previously stated, that attacking Iran may only increase support for anti-western terrorism, the result being far worse then the current support by certain elements for Shiite Muslim militias.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Big bad oil companies are the perfect scapegoats when one doesn't want to place the blame where it's due, ignorant electorate and craven political leadership. Funny though, Congress had no problems passing a 10% ethanol requirement, I guess the farmers are bigger and badder than even the oil companies.

[meade95]

Big bad oil companies are the perfect scapegoats when one doesn't want to place the blame where it's due, ignorant electorate and craven political leadership. Funny though, Congress had no problems passing a 10% ethanol requirement, I guess the farmers are bigger and badder than even the oil companies.

Or how about the fact that Gov't makes more off a gallon of gasoline than does "big bad oil" companies (who by the way...are in existence to MAKE profits ...thus employ people). The notion that oil companies should WANT to do away with a profitable product is crazily absurd! .... Hell, I'm in a small business for myself.....Maybe I should take my most profitable item and get rid of it (because it is wrong).

Hey why doesn't BFC stop selling profitable games Or do so for a much lower profit margin??

Reality is Oil companies average around 9 % profit margins....(yet they take all the risk, see that product from the ground to your local gas station, employ tens of thousands and thousands of people)....and yet Fed and State Gov'ts make around 35-45 cents off that same gallon of gasoline.......

But of course we never hear of any windfall tax on Gov't portion of oil monies! Who is making record profits off the current oil prices is Government and they don't do a damn thing for it to boot!

[Alan8325]

Quick comment... there is no such thing as a free market place. Not here in the US anyway. The oil companies get huge subsidies from the US government, they have corrupting influence over both policies and royalties (as we've seen recently, sex, drugs, and money flow freely to those in government), the cost of securing the oil is borne by military and government actions, etc. I've seen some studies that show that most alternative energies are now comparable in cost when the cost of oil is adjusted to reflect true total costs.

Don't forget, also, that the way the infrastructure in the U.S. is set up makes it much more dependent on oil than other countries. Go to any town in Europe and you will see everything from businesses to residences within walking, biking, or short motorized driving distances. Everything is denser but transportation doesn't take nearly as many resources. Also, the areas outside of the dense urban areas take less of an environmental impact because there is less suburban development.

In the U.S. people value personal space so much that the norm in many places, especially in places like Los Angeles and San Diego, is sprawling suburban residental tracts with fenced-off 1 acre lots and 25 mile commutes to and from work. Most people can't walk even to the nearest store in reasonable time and even biking is often unreasonable given the distances involved. What this effectively does is enslave the economies of these areas to foreign oil and make it very difficult to get out of because the very structure of the civilization itself requires oil to be consumed for anything at all to be done.

[Splinty]

One of the reasons we Americans value our space so much is we have it. There are very few places in the States where one can see the next town over from inside your town. The other is when the U.S. was developing, noone had any real idea that there would ever be a petrolium shortage. Short sighted perhaps, but in the late 40s and early 50s when urban sprawl was starting up,oil was taken for granted and outside of a few very small and unknown enviromental groups nobody expected that to change.

[FAI]

One of the reasons we Americans value our space so much is we have it. There are very few places in the States where one can see the next town over from inside your town. The other is when the U.S. was developing, noone had any real idea that there would ever be a petrolium shortage. Short sighted perhaps, but in the late 40s and early 50s when urban sprawl was starting up,oil was taken for granted and outside of a few very small and unknown enviromental groups nobody expected that to change.

Well, it did, change, no?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request