Israeli Conflict

[General Patton]

What you are seeing is the very skilled orchestration of the beginnings of WWIII. This remains one of the reasons we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. What people don't understand is the vital importance that Iraq is going to play in the upcoming battle for the Middle East and the precursor for a full-scale world war. At some point, Iran is going to launch an attack on Israel, as they may start mobilizing across Iraqi borders to do it. That move will be akin to waging war on the United States, so we may use it as an opportunity to eliminate their army. Surely, one can see the potential for a triple pronged attack on Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, and from the seas, by way of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. We might have problems in the Caspian region as we have failed to establish solid relations with Turkmenistan. This area will most likely act as a conduit for Russia to provide support for Iran in an effort to undercut our efforts, and avenge our part in their loss in Afghanistan. Having positions in Afghanistan might enable us to counter such a move by making use of the geography of the Alborz range to gain control of the Golestan Province and subsequently the Mazandaran Province. Positions held by the U.S. in Iraq will become key to gaining control of key cities in the Azerbaijan, Gilan, and Ardabil Provinces. Again, our forces will be aided by geographical obstacles. It should be possible to limit outside reinforcements and supplies, by owning the appropriate real estate. The ultimate goal would be Tehran and the mad mullahs that have been calling the shots, aiding Hezbollah and Hamas, and chanting “death to Israel; death to America”. Saudi Arabia is most likely going to side with the United States in an attempt to gain further power and control in the region. They will surely work things to their advantage. While our forces our occupied, China might make an end-run for Taiwan, sparking the inevitable showdown between the two world powers. At some point, Russia, who has been playing both sides against the middle in Chinese-U.S. relations will most likely ally with us, understanding that the more critical and immediate threat to them is China. However, China will have notable allies in Europe, among them France, who has had aspirations of becoming the dominant player in the European Union. The results are sure to be more devastating than WWI and WWII combined, as the depopulation of China will be equivalent to endgame.

None of this would have been possible without an U.S. negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We knew that the Palestinians did not intend to honor a peace agreement with the Jews that they despise. However, the purpose for this maneuvering was to further legitimize any attack from Israel on its neighboring countries, because they would be insane not to fight back. This provides enough provocation to flush out Iran, shore up the resources that we our going to need to wage war on the largest military population on the planet, and expose China’s true motives.

Fact is, China has had a heavy hand in supporting terrorist states as a way to wage war and weaken the United States without having to confront a standup fight against the U.S. military. They have been biding their time, building a very large army and navy, and waiting for their technology to catch up. In reality, they have been waging “unconventional warfare”, and have been playing their own game to involve us heavily in the Middle East because they want to concentrate our forces in one area and eliminate them, use terrorist acts to weaken our economy and resolve, and tie us up long enough to crush Taiwan’s tendency toward democracy. Their ultimate goal is the depopulation of the United States and the acquisition of American food supplies.

Of course, all of this is merely conjecture, but one thing is certain. Iran is next on the chopping block. There is no question that U.S. action in the Middle East is going to result in the decapitation of yet another regime hostile to the United States and western philosophy. Iran’s days are numbered.

Copyright 2006

[Phalanx]

You are such a warmonger. Treating this like some big game is foolish and stupid. You are either a chickenhawk or some disillusioned youth searching for meaning in life. In the words of The Clash, "Death or glory, just another story!".

[General Patton]

I don't view it as a game, as it is obvious what's at stake here, our survival or our enemies.

[Phalanx]

Yet your entire post reads like a Risk game.

What's at stake is what will happen to the innocents of the world at the hands of the U.S. imperial army. America has consistently shown its willingness to deal with its 'enemies' very aggressively and without concern to civilian cost.

[General Patton]

Really? That's why we are in the process of fighting one of the most politically correct wars imaginable when it comes to concern for the lives of civilians. Yep, we sure are showing that "disproportionate retaliation", which leftist vermin are so found of talking about. As if the destruction of your enemy shouldn't be an objective. Have you ever seen "Why We Fight". No, I mean the original 7 part series that was shown to our soldiers before they were sent into the European and Pacific theatres during WWII. The number one objective was the complete and utter destruction of the Japanese, German, and Italian ability to wage war. Mission accomplished and we did it in record time, too. If we were as uncompassionate as you suggest, why did we bother sticking around to help those countries develop democracies that would go on to promote civil societies that recognize humanity's fundamental human rights as people? Nope, it seems to me that you are wrong. We have always fought against the type of military imperialism and world domination that you accuse the United States of committing.

[Phalanx]

The U.S. veil of 'democratization' of the world is in reality a policy to keep the most resource rich countries allied to the United States. If this is not imperialism, I don't know what is.

The current war is not in any way a 'moral' war. It is an imperialist war with the sole purpose of setting up a government sympathetic to America so the U.S. can wrap its tentacles around the sole resource of the Iraqi people.

[Zero]

People like you General Patton make sick. "As if the destruction of your enemy shouldn't be an objective." Seriously man. Do you have a heart?

[Morag]

So, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, killing thousands and thousnads of people, including its own citizens, to prepare for a war against Iran, instead of attacking Iran? Right... And you support this regime why?


Fact is, China has had a heavy hand in supporting terrorist states as a way to wage war and weaken the United States without having to confront a standup fight against the U.S. military.

Prove it.


In reality, they have been waging “unconventional warfare”, and have been playing their own game to involve us heavily in the Middle East

Ah! I see now. Somehow, China orchestrated Bush's election, 9/11, and then determined that oil was necessary to it's economy. Clever people, yeah? Get a life.


because they want to concentrate our forces in one area and eliminate them,

If they'd kept you at home, you'd have been more concentrated. Where the hell do you get this tripe?


use terrorist acts to weaken our economy and resolve,

Because terrorism to weaken resolve has worked wonders in Britain, Germany, Ireland, Israel...


and tie us up long enough to crush Taiwan’s tendency toward democracy. Their ultimate goal is the depopulation of the United States and the acquisition of American food supplies.

Your brilliant! Taiwanese democracy, of course! (Not Taiwanese independence, no no. Democracy. Like they haven't managed to deal with Hong Kong) Because, if the goal is food supplies, Taiwan is the key! Not, you know, the vast areas of China that could feed the entire area, given the farm equipment...

Your entire grand scheme is baseless. Provide some sources that make any of it realistic. Why would, for instance, Russia decide to frustrate American efforts at pacifying Islamic terrorists when it would benefit them in their southern regions, and it Central Asia? And, furthermore, between a rock and a hard place, like China vs US, why not just stay neutral and benefit economically from it all? Is everyone in your little scenario as bloodthirsty as you? And why is the depopulation of America or China the only outcome you can see?


However, China will have notable allies in Europe, among them France, who has had aspirations of becoming the dominant player in the European Union.

Prove it. I'm not saying your wrong, but show us how siding with China against the US could possibly help France in the EU? And why would you think, after WWIII in which either China or the US is destroyed, the EU would be at all important?


The results are sure to be more devastating than WWI and WWII combined, as the depopulation of China will be equivalent to endgame.

*snort!* Yeah, right. Depopulate China? That's impossible without destroying the whole fucking world, and if you don't understand that, you have no business even attempting to discuss geopolitics. China is never going to be "depopulated" by anyone without massive "depopulation" everywhere. As in, nuclear winter.

The rest of your schemes I find based partially in common sense, but skewed horribly in fantasy. I suggest you join the army and have some fun in Iran- that, at the very least, I agree with you on. (And trust me, you don't need to "copyright" your tripe ideas)

[General Patton]

People like you General Patton make sick. "As if the destruction of your enemy shouldn't be an objective." Seriously man. Do you have a heart?

Okay then; how do you think that wars should be fought? You don't agree that your enemies capacity to wage war should be completely destroyed, even if that means completely obliterating your enemy's population? Let's hear your grand strategy for conducting warfare and see if it makes any sense whatsoever.

[Zero]

Why in the fuck should wars be waged in the first place? The only conflict I would support is the emancipation of Human kind from your kind. The days of the Capitalist, racist, and bigot are numbered.

[General Patton]

But how do you propose to succeed in your goal?

[Zero]

Staggered worldwide revolution with majority class conciousness. Exactly like everyone else here...

[General Patton]

In other words, you plan to use the same sort of violence that you pretend to abhor. It looks like you are both a liar and a hypocrite. What a shame. Again, I am not fooled by your dim-witted trickery.

[The Sloth]

patton,

any idiot can have goals, any idiot can have some sort of stupid "analysis" of any situation. you're certainly no exception.

what, exactly, is the point of your thread? you're detailing military strategy for a hypothetical war.. realistically, people post topics for discussion. what kind of responses are you expecting?

[General Patton]

what kind of responses are you expecting?

From the left? You are doing a very good job living up to my expectations.

[EwokUtopia]

Well, heres to world war III, the defeat of the american empire, and the rise of the Communo-Islamist Sino-Arab Terrorist superstate of Iraqistan! Marxhu Akhbar!

You didnt seriously think you guys could win this, did you? your forgetting, us commies have extra-terrestrial rayguns and time machines, watch out George Washington and the fathers of freedom, its zapping time! Why? because we hate your free way of life where anyone can suceed, why else?

[Zero]

I don't abhor violence against soldiers, and against willing foes. However I would hardly call civilians 'willing foes'.

EDIT: Oh, yeah. And we have ray guns. :rolleyes: Thanks for that Ewok.

[Morag]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 25 2006, 03:09 AM

what kind of responses are you expecting?

From the left? You are doing a very good job living up to my expectations.
You can't use one point, the "how should wars be fought, then," disregard very other argument against your initial post and suggest we're not doing a good job of rebuting your scenario. You've done shit all to defend your opinion, especially since the conduct of war had nothing to do with your initial post.

On the topic you've decided to argue though, warfare is a continually changing thing. The conditions under which a society goes to war is always different and as technology progresses, so to does warfare- every RMA brings about a new type of warfare, so the answer to "how should wars be fought," cannot be answered by anyone actually willing to fight one, because war is not concievable ahead of time. We can all say, "Civilians shouldn't be harmed," but the ability to keep things to the combatants only went out in WWI. (Without making moral statements, I'd point out that the civilian death toll in Lebanon is so high compared to Israeli soldiers because of Hezbollahs policy of placing weapons and command posts in heavily-populated neighbourhoods; therefore, for the Israelis to destroy these military targets, some civilian casualities will necessarily occur. [I'm not taking a side on it, just making the point- and this was originally written before Zero's post and should not be read as a comment on it, because I'm in full agreement]. For a civilian-casualityless conflict, a number of conditions would have to be met on both sides on the conflict, and because that would require cooperation, it is unlikely to occur again in our history, until technology because so much more accurate then it is now).