Doug on August 24, 2007 at 1:14 AM

You are correct, which is why the enemy in this war is most correctly described as arabs/persians/muslims (APM). Three different groups (though not disjoint) with different agendas, but all of which are actively targetting the West and progress.

Personally, I think our biggest problem is not with muslims, but with arabs and persians, from a cultural level. It just turns out that arabs “own” sunni islam and use it as a weapon, while the persians “own” shiia islam and use that as a weapon.

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

I served with some outstanding fellows Marines from both north and south of the border but they where culled from the general population. I don’t even think the army would take that rabble.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM

I totally agree with you and our military isn’t effective without like-minded, loyal, highly-trained soldiers.

I just assumed there were some positions that didn’t require much technical expertise (digging, fetching, building roads/barracks/infrastructure, maintenance, some forms of security, etc…) As far as infantry, I assume there are some illegals or ones in the immigration process that are pro-US and may want to prove their loyalty? Couldn’t most of the idiots be filtered out through the training process and be forced into the “grunt-work” positions?

I think that some of our US military currently enlisted just wanted a job and such, and (through training and time) have become highly honorable, loyal, respected, highly skilled and disciplined men.

I doubt there is nothing useful for the military that could be attained from a pool of 12 million (or 20 million) illegals or more from immigrants wanting in. Doesn’t our military training process filter the idiots from the rest? Couldn’t the bad apples be deported?

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

TheSitRep on August 23, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Ditto. To paraphrase General George S. Patton, I’d rather have ten divisions of Iranians in front of me than one division of those illegals behind me. They abandoned their country, why should we assume they would defend ours?

The “12 million” illegals would solve the military recruitment problem. They should be required to do 4 yrs of service. They get free health care, food, semi-shelter, and they would prove their loyalty to the US. That should be good enough for them.

Then, they work for the US gov for the next 4 yrs on infrastructure (at minimum wage)….you know, bridges and stuff.

Then, they would be US citizens.

Takes care of the immigration problem and military recruitment together.

nottakingsides on August 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM

I’d hate to have a bunch of illiterate, uneducated people with god knows what allegiances coving my back. No sir! You under estimate to skill and intelligence it takes to effectively set up a machine gun or dial in a mortar.

I served with some outstanding fellows Marines from both north and south of the border but they where culled from the general population. I don’t even think the army would take that rabble.

Simultaneously, we need to get the Iranian people to take their country back.
Help them like the French résistance.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. believes time is running out on diplomacy with Iran, according to an interview on Fox’s America’s Newsroom yesterday. He also said he hopes a military strike on Iran is on the table in the next 6 months….

infidel4life on August 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Exactly. Disable their response capability with the first blow.

Why does the world let them continue their stewardship?

Ernest on August 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Indeed, Ernest.

Is it because we all hate and distrust each other so much that we’d never decide how to manage the resource?

I don’t think so. I think it is white guilt, once again. Since WWII, the West has been obssessed with trying to show how much “better” we are than others, not “stooping to their level” – which is what internationalizing the fields would be. More liberal cognitive disonance.

And the conservatives seem to be cowed by liberals screaming about “war for oil”, which is not only inaccurate but totally dismisses the FACT that oil is the most strategically important resource in the world (without which the world would come to a grinding halt and billions would die) and only the dimmest of wits would not have their national security strategy pay very close attention to such a necessary resource, even aside from the fact that the oil fuels the war against us.

That’s how it looks to me.

How this is stopped is the only question.

Economic pressure (too many of our “allies” trade with these nutjobs), sabotage, psyops (“The Mahdi has returned!”) campaigns, paid agents (they’re already hanging their own people for being “Western agents”, so it wouldn’t be much of a change), etc., all need to be underway.

You don’t let children juggle hand grenades and you don’t let ayatollahs play with nukes.

Maybe the commenters here don’t but who’s to say whether or not the Pentagon has a plan?

Anyone who thinks the Pentagon doesnt has a plan either hasnt paid any attention to the news ever, or really needs to put the crack pipe down. The War College has contingency plans for almost every thing, hell I’m pretty sure they even have plans drawn up for a hostile space alien invasion…

But, so long as the political power and wealth flow into the hands of the arabs and persians, and the security of the fields is left in their hands, there will be no peace for the civilized world.

I hate how that sounds but I kind of agree. Over and over they demonstrate a lack of sanity. They torture, maim and kill one another over disagreement about religion. These pathetic people control the lifeblood of the entire planet. Why does the world let them continue their stewardship?

Is it because we all hate and distrust each other so much that we’d never decide how to manage the resource?

Some say that Iran would not make the mistake of attempting to take the US military on but instead rely on asymmetrical tactics, I say…helloieeee they are already doing that. With all of Iran’s disposable income, well hell all of their income dried up thanks to not being able to produce oil their asymmetrical forces/terrorists would face some serious logistics problems. It’s damn hard to fight any kind of war when you don’t have bullets or bombs.

Furthermore if we are going to bomb Iran I say don’t stop at their Qud’s forces, take down their entire military, make it as close to impossible as possible for them to supply their operatives with weapons food fuel or cash. In other words starve their asymmetrical forces/terrorists to death right from the beginning.

Then, they work for the US gov for the next 4 yrs on infrastructure (at minimum wage)….you know, bridges and stuff.

Then, they would be US citizens.

Takes care of the immigration problem and military recruitment together.

Folks who want to attack Iran now don’t seem to have a plan in mind.

Maybe the commenters here don’t but who’s to say whether or not the Pentagon has a plan?

Personally, I don’t know why OPEC is still allowed to operate. All of the “internationalists” seem to have no problem with this cartel, though the same people railed against Microsoft for being a “monopoly” when Linux has been freely available for years (to mention but one alternative to Microsoft).

Your point about the sheiks and mullahs getting nervous over their money and power possibly disappearing rings true to me, but I don’t see this war ending any other way, not without the sort of massive destruction that would otherwise be required. And, if we destroy enough of the arab/persian world to totally defang them, then they wouldn’t be able to administer the fields, anyway.

As to the public relations fight, it will be tough. But enough Americans remember the OPEC embargo of the 70′s to make this not so hard a sell as it might appear (fingers crossed and praying).

Of course, the libs love to jump on statements such as mine to claim that we are looking to “steal the fields”, but I don’t think it would be hard to win that fight. Like I said, if they lean on legal aspects, then the move from nationalization to internationalization (adminstered by the US and allies, not the UN) is easily argued and won.

Still, it would be a difficult fight, as you point out, but it seems to me to be inevitable and necessary. It would also be the most “humane” way of ending this war, since any other way will involve enough killing that, if I were to detail it I might get banned from this site. :)

This puts us in a tough spot now because the war against islamonazism is a big game of hyperviolent international whack-a-mole and Iran is the king of the mole-hill.

Wingo on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I would say that, while Iran is the King of the Moles, the mole-hill is the gulf oil fields. They are what gives the arabs/persians/muslims all their political power and all of the money to finance their war, AND they cannot be trusted with the security of the fields – as Saddam Hussein demonstrated when he intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire. If people really wanted to end this war they would realize that it will end only after the gulf oil fields are wrested back from the arabs and persians. Letting them steal the fields in the nationalizations of the 60′s was one of the greatest mistakes the West has ever made. Ever.

For the legal types, it can be called an internationalization of the world’s most important resource, just as they accepted the nationalization of those same resources.

But, so long as the political power and wealth flow into the hands of the arabs and persians, and the security of the fields is left in their hands, there will be no peace for the civilized world.

This puts us in a tough spot now because the war against islamonazism is a big game of hyperviolent international whack-a-mole and Iran is the king of the mole-hill. The US simply isn’t big enough to have a mallet waiting everywhere the jihadis rear their ugly little heads.

We need allies to help us. But barring some great epiphany, the old-world juveniles will never really recognize jihad as a threat and join us in the fight to save the west and the world from the continuous and growing onslaught of jihad terrorists.

- The Cat