Friday, April 3, 2015

Remember the Iraq War?

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

Remember the Iraq war?  Well, here are a couple of comparisons for those who are planning our next cakewalk in Iran:

Population:
Iran:  78.47 million
Iraq 2003:  25.96 million

Armed Forces:
Iran:  Army: Frontline and Reserve Personnel:  2,345,000
           Navy: 397 ships
           Air Force: 471 aircraft
Iraq 2003:  Army: 375,000 troops
           Navy: virtually totally destroyed during 1991 Gulf war, and never rebuilt
           Air Force:  Estimated 90 flyable planes

And this time we will be going in with absolutely no allies.  As in the last two wars in the Middle East, Israel will have to stay out, or we will risk a unified Muslim front against us, stretching over a third of the world.

The fools that think we can go halfway around the world and defeat an army that is vastly larger than the one next door that made total idiots of our government- well, of course, they are the same fools that think we can go on ignoring global warming, and somehow the mess will get cleaned up; the same fools that think the free marked fixes everything.  Greed, not reality, is their guiding light, so don't be surprised if they actually find a way to start a war with Iran.  Just don't have any illusions that we will win that war.  It will be a military blunder that will make even the Iraq war look like a minor incident- it will be more like the Austrian invasion of Serbia in 1914, which not only made the Austrians look like one of the most pathetic military powers on earth, but managed to start a world war that killed 20 million people.  And the next world war killed 50 million.  How many do you think we could go for this time?

7 comments:

ez said...

The right wing loves to bust on Neville Chamberlin and exult Churchill as the Man because he stood against Hitler.

You never hear them using this Churchill quote though "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war" He made that in his remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954.

You also never hear them talking about Churchill's support for the creation of the NHS

Anonymous said...

lies. Nobody wants to got to war with Iran. But what they need to think is that we would be willing to.
Right now they know they can continue on with no consequences.
All you lefties are concerned with is Barry's pathetic legacy

Green Eagle said...

" Nobody wants to got to war with Iran."

What kind of an idiot are you?

Green Eagle said...

And ez, my reading of English history indicates that Chamberlain knew perfectly well that the Munich agreement was worthless, but, being a Conservative, he would not agree to a military buildup in England, because it would require raising taxes and thus threaten the Conservative government. So, he just ignored the problem and left it for someone else to deal with. That someone was Churchill, who, whatever his flaws, seems to have been just about the only Conservative willing to spend money on a military buildup. By that time, of course, it was too late to avert World War II, and thus 50 million people paid with their lives for Conservative refusal to raise taxes.

ez said...

Agreed.

Although there is another school of thought that postulates Chamberlin's agreement gave Britian the time to begin to build forces.

The main point is much like that of the Generals who prepare for the next war based on the tactics of the last one. The Republicans are worse and view everything through the lens of 1938-1939.

Green Eagle said...

ez,

Yes, that's their claim. Do you buy it? Or do you think they are just doing their best to invent, after the fact, some justification for their miserable behavior?

ez said...

I think having lost most of a generation of young and not so young men in WWI they were happy to believe what they hoped true.