Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (1 Viewer)

[supercharged]

Great powers? Both Iran and Syria are major regional powers. Iran and Syria don't need to send troops, just arms and explosives into Iraq. They can open the borders and become international staging points for Islamic militants pouring into Iraq, in the same way that Pakistan was during the Soviet-Afganistan war. The American battle in Iraq would be majorly stuffed then.

 

[loquasagacious]

The key difference that you have completely missed is that during the Afghan-Soviet war Pakistan was a conduit for American support. Just like Iran and Syria Pakistan was not in a position to support the mujahideen however geopolitically Pakistan was in the perfect place to enable American support.

You can be a major regional power simply through your neighbours being shithouse. The reason that we emphasised that a major power is needed is that a major power is the only one with the resources sufficient to do what you envisage. Arms and explosives are not cheap especially new ones and things like NVG are astronomically expensive. Very very few countries can afford to give these away to 'freedom fighters'. If you recall the Iran-Contra affair you may be aware of the huge numbers involved in supplying the relatively small sadinista forces.

As stated previously Iran and particularly Syria's borders are already virtually open simply by being so porous.

Finally were Iran or Syria to do what you recommend they would be bringing down the wrath of the US on them. All the sanctions and punitive strikes that entails. Thus it would not be in their best interests.

 

[soha]

http://www.jsalloum.org/meenerhabedam3.wmv


found this
made me cry..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If the US could show that Iran and Syria are supporting attacks on Americans, i.e. the government, they could use missiles and hurt them without ever entering their country.

Sure it would be a mess, but it would be suicide for the Iranian and Syrians.

 

[Iron]

Sure it would be a mess, but it would be suicide for the Iranian and Syrians.

Hence a stupid thing to bring up. Demand stricken record

 

[supercharged]

The key difference that you have completely missed is that during the Afghan-Soviet war Pakistan was a conduit for American support. Just like Iran and Syria Pakistan was not in a position to support the mujahideen however geopolitically Pakistan was in the perfect place to enable American support.

You can be a major regional power simply through your neighbours being shithouse. The reason that we emphasised that a major power is needed is that a major power is the only one with the resources sufficient to do what you envisage. Arms and explosives are not cheap especially new ones and things like NVG are astronomically expensive. Very very few countries can afford to give these away to 'freedom fighters'. If you recall the Iran-Contra affair you may be aware of the huge numbers involved in supplying the relatively small sadinista forces.

As stated previously Iran and particularly Syria's borders are already virtually open simply by being so porous.

Finally were Iran or Syria to do what you recommend they would be bringing down the wrath of the US on them. All the sanctions and punitive strikes that entails. Thus it would not be in their best interests.

Ok NVGs may be a bit too expensive to supply for free. But large supplies of plastic explosives, unguided rockets and mines are relatively cheap and cause total chaos. Just a small number of high tech weapons in the hands of insurgents such as MANPADs and decent anti-tank weapons would seriously erode morale in the US military. Look at the Chechen rebels, they have blackmarket weapons to bring down Russian helicopters. Russia has an even harder time trying to control them, than the US with Iraqis.

@NTB

America is a paper tiger atm, they can't physically open a second or third front with Syria or Iran, since their troops are already stretched with Iraq. If they did bombing runs on Iran you can be sure that Iran would relatiate by firing off a load of Shahab-3 ballastic missiles into Israel. Then the shit would really hit the fan.

 

[whitie]

OK EVERYBODY LETS ALL TAKE A MINUTE TO GIVE GEORGE BUSH THE BIG FINGER...thats my 2 cents

P.S. The armed forces doesn't create wars, politicians do.

Whether you are against the invasion or for it, the opinion on that matter is irrelevant because it's happened now. I do think though that Iraq will be a bigger mess if the Americans pulled out right now without a stable government being established. It will descend into civil war and alot more lives will be lost than if America, Britain and the other coalitions stay there until the job is done.

So if you dont support the occupation, think about what would actually happen to Iraq if troops left. Would the Iraqi's be running around the streets of Baghdad throwing up flowers because they are rid of the occupation or would they be shooting at eacb other as the different ethnic groups all vie for dominant power.

P.P.S Bush is a dumbass...the end

 

[whitie]

here's a funny satire by chappelle show on if 'bush was black' very enjoyable hahaha

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/3334/Chappelle_s_Show_Black_Bush.html

 

[Raginsheep]

supercharged, America is only a "paper tiger" at the moment because of a number of factors including the lack of domestic support for the continued troop prescence in Iraq and also because of the nature of the resistance. In any conventional war, especially one where they are not the aggressor, then they would win easily.

That said, the greatest problem the Americans face is not a military one. Their problems are the fact that they have to, at least, maintain their image, or some semblence of it, as the "goodies" where as the insurgents are free to use any means they see fit.

 

[Comrade nathan]

For instance Nathan an avowed communist is now aligned with radical religious elements. We see a militant atheist alongside a militant muslim.....

What type of a Communist would i be if i supported a puppert government?

Also not all the fighters are religious, they just have a large part in the leadership. It would be like if Australia was invaded, if the Church played a prominent role in resistance leadership, i would fight with them and so would many others.

This does not mean the religious elements will take leadership in the government when the US leave.

 

[loquasagacious]

But large supplies of plastic explosives, unguided rockets and mines are relatively cheap and cause total chaos.

Large numbers of relatively cheap weaponary still equates to expensive.

Just a small number of high tech weapons in the hands of insurgents such as MANPADs and decent anti-tank weapons would seriously erode morale in the US military. Look at the Chechen rebels, they have blackmarket weapons to bring down Russian helicopters. Russia has an even harder time trying to control them, than the US with Iraqis.[/quote]

High tech weapons are A hard to come by and B expensive. The Chechen rebels have several things on their side including neighbouring sympathetic countries which act as conduits, that they are not fighting the US and that via theft, looting and the black market they have been able to acquire Russian arms.

America is a paper tiger atm, they can't physically open a second or third front with Syria or Iran, since their troops are already stretched with Iraq. If they did bombing runs on Iran you can be sure that Iran would relatiate by firing off a load of Shahab-3 ballastic missiles into Israel. Then the shit would really hit the fan.

Correct America would not open a 2nd/3rd front in Iran/Syria as they are already stretched. They would however impose sanctions, engage in punitive air strikes and special forces raids. It would not be neccessary to invade Iran or Syria to cause them to reach their strategic defeat threshold, it would be enough to simply destabilise the respective regimes by knocking out infrastructure.

Obviously enough the first step in any such action would be the mobilising of Patriot batteries in Israel and the knocking out of all locatable Iranian missiles. It is however important to note that even were their missiles not targetted Iran would be unlikley to use them against Israel, it would not serve a viable strategic purpose. Unlike Sadams targetting in Gulf War I.

America is only a "paper tiger" at the moment because of a number of factors including the lack of domestic support for the continued troop prescence in Iraq and also because of the nature of the resistance. In any conventional war, especially one where they are not the aggressor, then they would win easily.

America is a paper tiger because they can win a war but not the peace. They can easily defeat any opponent on the field however they do not have the manpower, willpower, training or logistics to occupy. In other words they can take but not hold.

@Nathan:

I think you're kidding yourself if you think anything other than an Iran style theocracy would take power were America to withdraw.