PDA

View Full Version : Will the US go to War with Iran?



Black Jack II
10-26-2007, 11:47 AM
Since the forum seems a little dead I got curious and decided to take a little poll on what people believe the percentages our that the US will go to War with Iran in the future?

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't think they will be that stupid.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 11:52 AM
Well, we have troops east of there in Afghanistan, and West of it in Iraq. We are already positioned to go in there on 2 fronts simultaneously. Not to mention we have Naval access Via the Persian Gulf.

I think maybe neutralizing Syria first might be a good idea if we are planing on going into Iran....Israel seems to be starting trouble there now.

My guess is that it is possible, however I think we would already be seeing a media buildup to go to war with them before the elections to help insure a Republican victory....unless the plan is to wait untill the primaries are over.

I think it is just a matter of finding plausible Justification.

Lucas
10-26-2007, 11:53 AM
I don't think they will be that stupid.

LOL, you realize we are talking about the U.S.....right?

:p

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 11:55 AM
Well, we have troops east of there in Afghanistan, and West of it in Iraq. We are already positioned to go in there on 2 fronts simultaneously.

I think maybe neutralizing Syria first might be a good idea if we are planing on going into Iran....Israel seems to be starting trouble there now.

My guess is that it is possible, however I think we would already be seeing a media buildup to go to war with them before the elections to help insure a Republican victory....unless the plan is to wait untill the primaries are over.

*shakes head*
You don't win wars in other people's backyards, even more so when its more than 1 back yard.
Stupid to say the very least.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 11:59 AM
You do win them by surrounding them and going in on several fronts at once...and we are lined up for that right now if we want. Remember, we are not in anyone's back yard, we controll Afghanistan and Iraq. If it's anyone's *Back Yard*, it's ours. Neither will give any resistance to our use of thier land to stage an Iranian invasion.

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 12:00 PM
You do win them by surrounding them and going in on several fronts at once...and we are lined up for that right now if we want. Remember, we are not in anyone's back yard, we controll Afghanistan and Iraq. If it's anyone's *Back Yard*, it's ours. Neither will give any resistance to our use of thier land to stage an Iranian invasion.

No.
You don;t control anything.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 12:03 PM
If you think we couldn't use Afghanistan, and Iraq to base attacks on Iran, your blind, and a bit Nieve. We occupy BOTH territories. Both are under US controll, and what little shell of governments are there, are only there at our support.

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 12:04 PM
If you think we couldn't use Afghanistan, and Iraq to base attacks on Iran, your blind, and a bit Nieve. We occupy BOTH territories. Both are under US controll, and what little shell of governments are there, are only there at our support.

You control nothing and wil control even less if you spread yourselves evne thinner.
Your issues with Turkey has to be solved first by the way...

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 12:06 PM
Or lets put it this way, If Bush wants to go and invade Iran, what is there to STOP us from using Iraq, and Afghanistan to invade on multiple fronts?

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 12:07 PM
How would we spread thinner? We are already there with a military build up. It's not like we would have to find more resources to do it, the resources are ALREADY in place.

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Or lets put it this way, If Bush wants to go and invade Iran, what is there to STOP us from using Iraq, and Afghanistan to invade on multiple fronts?

Nothing, of course that would be stupid in all possible ways.
Not to mention you will bring Russia and China into this.
Not t to mention you will lose Turkey and its airspace.
Not to mention most instability and, by the way, you have no $$$ to do it.

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 12:09 PM
How would we spread thinner? We are already there with a military build up. It's not like we would have to find more resources to do it, the resources are ALREADY in place.

Dude, you think you can fight a WAR with what is there ???
Not a few battles, a major war on mutiple fronts ??

TenTigers
10-26-2007, 12:09 PM
to paraphrase Bruce Lee...
with poetic license...


"Bombs! Now why doesn't someone take out a Nuclear Bomb,
and BANG! Settew it?" :eek:

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 12:10 PM
to paraphrase Bruce Lee...
with poetic license...


"Bombs! Now why doesn't someone take out a Nuclear Bomb,
and BANG! Settew it?" :eek:

LOL!
He was a man ahead of the times !

Mas Judt
10-26-2007, 12:11 PM
I think we should start by freeing the Canadians from domination by the crown of England. they have been serfs long enough.

Invading Iran is a stupid f@cking idea. Iran can change by itself, and it will if we just handle this stuff smarter. As a country we gave the Administration the benefit of the doubt. We learned our own allies the French and the Germans were on Saddam's payroll. By most rights, we had good reason to invade - but ultimately NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Ron Paul was right on this, but at the time the news ignored him.

SifuAbel
10-26-2007, 12:18 PM
to paraphrase Bruce Lee...
with poetic license...


"Bombs! Now why doesn't someone take out a Nuclear Bomb,
and BANG! Settew it?" :eek:

Thats the problem, Bush thinks he is the end times president. He is pushing to get his brain dead scenario out to the nuclear agenda before his term is up. Its sick.

The minute he even mentioned WW3 people were getting panicky about the whole nuclear problem.

Putin is no saint. He is just as evil. He has effectively revived soviet Russia. He wants strife in the middle east just to keep his oil prices up. Because without it his economy and his regime would collapse.

edit: I voted no, the American people and congress do not want another front.

MightyB
10-26-2007, 01:01 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

Why I hope it doesn't happen.

Granted- the whole rest of the world doesn't have the cajonies to fill the US's knickers. But, I don't think our economy can handle another one. Just think before you criticize though- if the US wasn't the US- you'd all be speaking German right now. ;)

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 01:06 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

Why I hope it doesn't happen.

Granted- the whole rest of the world doesn't have the cajonies to fill the US's knickers. But, I don't think our economy can handle another one. Just think before you criticize though- if the US wasn't the US- you'd all be speaking German right now. ;)

That's a rather insulting thing to say to al the countries that lost millions of people fighting the Nazis BEFORE the US got in it.
But I assume with that little wink you weren't that serious.

SifuAbel
10-26-2007, 01:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

Why I hope it doesn't happen.

Granted- the whole rest of the world doesn't have the cajonies to fill the US's knickers. But, I don't think our economy can handle another one. Just think before you criticize though- if the US wasn't the US- you'd all be speaking German right now. ;)


At least that was a real threat. If bush were president during WW2 we would have attacked Australia.

sanjuro_ronin
10-26-2007, 01:09 PM
At least that was a real threat. If bush were president during WW2 we would have attacked Australia.

ROTFLMAO !!!

Nice one.

MightyB
10-26-2007, 02:03 PM
Although I don't agree with how the current administration is going about things- they do actually get things done. I know that Canada really was the major factor in negotiating North Korea's latest nuclear program shutdown...

Seriously- Canada has always involved itself in being a responsible force in global politics- but because of limited resources- it has had limited success. I do know of the disaster at Dunkirk and the price that Canada paid- I also know how involved Agent "Intrepid" (a Canadian) was in building British and American intelligence- broke the enigma code- etc...

But- the US was the deciding factor then- as it is now. We pay for pretty much all your freedom- I for one would rather the US spend more time dealing internally than externally- but whenever we try to ignore the rest of you ungrateful b@stards- the world goes to heck. So big Daddy US has to bail you all out- and my taxes go up- and I have to hear how terrible we are... blah, blah blah, whine whine whine.

We should build a wall... like China... a great wall-

Asia
10-26-2007, 02:07 PM
Since the forum seems a little dead I got curious and decided to take a little poll on what people believe the percentages our that the US will go to War with Iran in the future?

God I hope not. I really don't care to see the Middle East anymore.

WinterPalm
10-26-2007, 02:19 PM
The Americans have continued the legacy left over from British Imperialism, every now and then they have to stomp on somebody who gets out of hand.
With a neverending amount of force some of these countries might quiet down, but take the Americans and Canadians and British out of Afghanistan or Iraq, and it is just a matter of time before the country can assert itself against America.
We have seen this time and time again in Latin America.
Force is for when you have to use it...not to make others agree with you.

There are three countries (US, China, Russia) with more WMD's than anybody else. It is these countries that need weapons inspectors.

Yes, America helped in WW2, but they only did so rather late in the game.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-26-2007, 02:40 PM
Personally I think we should invade Mexico next.

NJM
10-26-2007, 02:45 PM
Dude, you think you can fight a WAR with what is there ???
Not a few battles, a major war on mutiple fronts ??

Yeah, I think RD was dipping into something when he said we had the resources in place to attack another country in that region.



I think maybe neutralizing Syria first might be a good idea if we are planing on going into Iran.....

............................................______ __
....................................,.-...................``~.,
.............................,.-...................................-.,
.........................,/...............................................:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....~,_........~,_....................,:`....... ._/
..........{.._$;_......=,_.......-,_.......,.-~-,},.~;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......=-._......;,,./`..../............../
...,,,___.\`~,......~.,....................`.....} ............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

This is a joke right? Please tell me you're completely blown.

SanHeChuan
10-26-2007, 03:04 PM
There is no point.

"We" can just bomb the F-ck out of their nuclear facility if it comes to that. Wait until the Russian finish building it, blow it up, then the Russian get to milk Iran for even more money building another one.

Why invade? Our little social reformation experiment has failed in Iraq, there would be no point in starting another one.

I do agree with Royal Dragon, we are aptly poised to kick Iran's @ss. We would only be spread thin, if we didn't abandon our other projects, or if we for some reason we tried to occupy Iran. But there would be not point in doing so. No one is going to just let us just take oil from the middle east.

I say we just abandon the whole thing. Not because it's the smart or right thing to do, but because it would be in MY best interests. Now that I'm in the Air force reserves I'd much rather get to spend my two weeks in Greece. :p

Yao Sing
10-26-2007, 03:35 PM
Both are under US controll

Are you sure about that? Small portions are but hardly the entire country (either one).


edit: I voted no, the American people and congress do not want another front.

Too bad the American people and Congress don't carry enough weight to force their wishes into reality.

The Willow Sword
10-26-2007, 04:03 PM
Hopefully this Congress will NOT fund a war against Iran. Hopefully This congress will impede any attempts this IDIOT president will make to start a war with Iran.

Peace,TWS

B-Rad
10-26-2007, 05:06 PM
I don't know. A lot of things have happened under this administration that I never saw coming :p If I have to pick one though, I'd say that there's no way Bush would get the funding for another war barring some kind of incredibly stupid move by Iran. Or something cleverly made to look like an Iranian attack (just figured I'd throw a bone to the conspiracy theorists out there ;) :D ).

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 05:26 PM
Both are under US controll, and what little shell of governments are there, are only there at our support.Neither are under US control, and nor the control of their own govts. Similar to Pakistan.

Plus it would be stupid to go into Iran because at least it has a leader... if there's one lesson to be learned from Iraq it's that regime change needs something to change it to. Sometimes it is better the devil you know, than the chaos of a multi-headed single-objective-less terror base.

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 05:29 PM
We learned our own allies the French and the Germans were on Saddam's payroll. LOL, any more than all the US contractors, arms dealers, 'logistics providers', 'IT companies' (like Blackwater always touted themselves) and construction companies? Bull.


By most rights, we had good reason to invade - but ultimately NOT GOOD ENOUGH.You had better reasons to invade France... You should listen to us - your main allies - why do you think we've fought them in every century except the last one...?! :D

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 05:37 PM
Just think before you criticize though- if the US wasn't the US- you'd all be speaking German right now. ;)Not this old bollocks again? Yes, we know you did a good job in the last war - thanks to your president then who had the guts to stand up to all the rest of your isolationists and take you in there. This comment is a huge insult to ALL of our grandparents: US's included - not many thought like that then - there were REAL ideals and freedom at stake, not spurious reasons and big business.

Plus, I don't know if you remember Churchill, but he believed what he said about never giving up - against the better judgment of our people, though we'd have still stood by his words as our best general. On top of that the Nazis wouldn't have tried to invade the UK: it was never their plan - so all that we did we did for altruism and to minimize the major f-ups we created with our dying empire.


But- the US was the deciding factor then- as it is now. We pay for pretty much all your freedom- I for one would rather the US spend more time dealing internally than externally- but whenever we try to ignore the rest of you ungrateful b@stards- the world goes to heck. So big Daddy US has to bail you all out- and my taxes go up- and I have to hear how terrible we are... blah, blah blah, whine whine whine. You've never paid for our freedom. Britain is still paying a huge debt incurred from WW2, and this war is also about your companies as a driving economic force above anything else. Your taxes just pay for when those govt-contracted companies f-up and have to go through court or pick up the pieces with the reg army from their gung-ho unregulated actions.


The Americans have continued the legacy left over from British Imperialism, every now and then they have to stomp on somebody who gets out of hand.With exactly the same stupid tactics! Though, to be fair, the Iraqis, Palestinians and everybody else had been messing themselves and each other up for centuries before we tried to 'help them out' (that last part is tongue in cheek - of course we were in it for ourselves... but some genuinely thought we could bring some stability).

Mas Judt
10-26-2007, 06:48 PM
churchill was also the ****er convinced the us to depose Iran's legally elected leader and install the Shah, just so BP could supply the empire with cheap oil, while treating those 'nasty brown people' as slaves. Some altruism...

MightyB
10-26-2007, 06:54 PM
I think your tea and crumpets have polluted your brain- that or too much Royal information overload.

Churchil had balls- Nevil- the Brit leader for most of WWII was a supreme wussbag- almost worse than DeGaul. Churchil- a man named Donaldson "Intrepid" (Canadian/Brit), and Admiral Halsey (American) saved Britain even with Nevil in charge- with very strong support from a man named Roosevelt (American). We were funding and supporting the Brits from the start- I mean other than rocks and a little wheat grass- what's there to eat on that rock of an isle you call home? Where's your iron deposits? Where did the bullets and bombs come from? There's some old time life books called the Secret War and another book called A Man Called Intrepid that you should really read... Anyway...

It doesn't matter what you or the rest of the board pretend to think. When something bad happens in the world, what's the universal outcry? It's always "Why or When's America going to help?" It's "What's America going to do?" or "When's America going to get involved?" You don't hear that about Japan, Russia, China, the Netherlands, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, South Africa, Britain, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Monico, Belgium, Croatia, Liberia, Chile, Brazil, Australia... I mean honestly- do I have to go on? NO, you don't hear it because your a bunch of self centered egotistical wussbags. You don't do crap to help anybody, you whine, you complain, and you're the first to beg- beg America to help. and you don't do a **** thing to help yourselves, you basically all suck and you know it. I don't hear- let's sneak into Hungary- the land of opportunity- or let's go to Portugal- you know the streets there are made of gold- lets go to... no those places suck- no freedom- nothing- our people give more- our people care more- our people are more tolerant- our people are more friendly- our people try to make a difference. You can all go to heck.

We'll do what we want in Iran- because we'll have to. With the exception of Israel, you all don't have the balls to do what needs to be done. Now go back to your tabloids and do nothing but complain about America - you're all really good at doing that.

Wusses- Darn I'm glad I'm an American.

Mas Judt
10-26-2007, 06:56 PM
We tend to think of Britain as the place that produced Churchill (who was a great wartime leader and called the Soviet threat while Roosevelt had his head up his @ss. You guys had Churchill we had that tool Roosevelt) -but Churchill was also an imperialist who treated non-white cultures very poorly.

Nobody is perfect, but at least we always try to do better.

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 07:01 PM
churchill was also the ****er convinced the us to depose Iran's legally elected leader and install the Shah, just so BP could supply the empire with cheap oil, while treating those 'nasty brown people' as slaves. Some altruism...Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you there at all (except maybe I don't know how much convincing the US needed - we were pretty close in the top echelons after all and still are) ... But it wasn't black and white, and never is in these cases.

For example, of course it was natural for the British Empire to behave as it did for its own ends, but I'm no revisionist on the horrors of that empire. But also, there were a lot of people (in govt, religious institutions and in companies - though fewer of the latter) who genuinely believed that what they were doing was good.

We get a lot of blame for slavery, because the govt supported the East India company - whilst forgetting that we almost bankrupted our navy several times literally physically stopping other slavers after we banned it. And of course, this also had selfish reasons, but you can't deny there were many genuine altruistic ones too.

Pretty much ALL of the same things can be said about the US now. There's good and bad to all nation-building and empire-maintaining.

Which is why statements about the US (or any country) being the saviours of the world always make me laugh.

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 07:24 PM
I think your tea and crumpets have polluted your brain- that or too much Royal information overload.There's not really any need for racist stereotypes is there? I don't drink tea (or much alcohol before you start not that either is a particularly laughable trait is it? :rolleyes: ), I can't get crumpets (unfortunately), and I've always been anti-royal and never listened to 'royal information' as most of us don't. I don't live in the UK.

You've not actually addressed any of my points, and few of my points even contradict yours - you've just gone off into rant mode. I didn't accuse the US of holding back or not funding us, I just said we're still paying so don't take it as altruism.


We were funding and supporting the Brits from the start- I mean other than rocks and a little wheat grass- what's there to eat on that rock of an isle you call home? Silly statement: we still provide over 60&#37; of our food needs in incredibly fertile soil. In the war we had it tight, and had rationing and were pretty well bankrupt - but we were still going on. And yes, that's partly because of your help - I haven't denied that.
Where's your iron deposits? Still have some now... of course the war was hard - it was for everyone, but if necessary we'd have gone the way the Japanese did and melted down our heirlooms to continue.
Where did the bullets and bombs come from?Show me where I denied your help? I'm just saying that your statement is an insult to all our grandparents - but that's fine, cos you seem like a rude little **** anyway. You helped us a lot - as we helped and are helping you a lot, and as we always helped each other a lot in modern history. You've gotta get over this comic-book superhero mentality, 'Mighty' B. :p


It doesn't matter what you or the rest of the board pretend to think. When something bad happens in the world, what's the universal outcry? It's always "Why or When's America going to help?" It's "What's America going to do?" or "When's America going to get involved?" LOL! :D WTF world do you live in (oh that's right - you've never spent any time out of your country among normal citizens of any other country have you?!)? More like "WTF are those retards gonna do now?!" - not saying I agree with that sentiment, but that's more like what I hear all the time - even here in Japan which is an even closer ally to you guys than my country (and usually very polite!)!
I mean honestly- do I have to go on?No, please don't! :D
NO, you don't hear it because your a bunch of self centered egotistical wussbags. LOL at the bolded, after your rant! Look in the mirror, ambassador!
You don't do crap to help anybody, Now you can **** off b!tch, we're allies you ****, why can't YOU get that into YOUR THICK HEAD and stop whingeing at me and us?! We've commited proportionally more of our small army and financial resources to both Iraq and Afghanistan than any other country (at risk to other security interests) - partly becasue we're always allies, like it or not, partly because of business interests (like you and partly because some of us believe we can help the people there (like some of you).

LOL at you sniffing at our news sources, d!ckhead - YOU need to get real and get some news outside of CNN.

Mr Punch
10-26-2007, 08:11 PM
How would we spread thinner? We are already there with a military build up. It's not like we would have to find more resources to do it, the resources are ALREADY in place.You are already spread too thinly in Iraq. Haven't you read the news in the last three years? Most generals said that this would be the case and was the case right from before the invasion. You don't have the resources to sustain an attack.

And if you think Iran is 'your back yard' you need a geography lesson!

I voted 'no' but that is more a hope than a logical decision.

David Jamieson
10-27-2007, 05:33 AM
Bush and Cheney would like to, but if Iraq is a quagmire, Iran would be a total disaster. I don't think the USA wants to go to war with Iran despite that the government might like to and has indeed made overtures to the same idea.

I think the USA would "break" under the pressure of another war front in the middle east.

the power struggle there is between Israel and everyone else.

What can we do but support Israel? Not much really, and that's what we are doing...which seems to have not done much to change the fortunes of many in t region.

Sal Canzonieri
10-27-2007, 06:04 AM
No matter what the American people want or the rest of the world, if they are going to do it is because someone involved is going to make a lot of short term money.
"They" could not care less of the impossibility of winning, the huge loss of life, property, and money, and the huge drain on the economy it will bring.

Ulterior motives are the deciding factors, and we are powerless to make it change.

Surely, it will bring on major consequences, Iran is fully capable of retaliatory things of their own in the gulf area, with the advent of WWIII most likely.

Israel wants "them" to do it, and for that reason, they will, regardless of what it does to America in the long run, they don't give a s-h-i-t about people at all.

All the behind the scenes deals we are not privy to and ultimately we have no way to stop them without finally demanding their impeachment, but once it happens, then what? Too late to impeach these insane selfish criminals.

It's an impossible to win task (win what? who knows), but that is not going to stop them if they made their deals already.

That's the reality of it. America has been taken over by criminals since the 80s really, we just work here, by permission. As long as we are needed to generate more tax money, we are allowed to be here, soon as we are not needed even for that, martial law will be imposed over from pretext, and in the labor camps we die.

Shaolin Wookie
10-27-2007, 07:02 AM
I say: Let's do it!!!!!


Ameeeerica! **** yeah!! Here we come again to save the muther****ing day-ah!!! Ameeerica! **** yeah!! Freedom is the only way!

Terrorists, your game is through, and now you're gonna answer to: America!!!!!!!

David Jamieson
10-27-2007, 07:24 AM
Iran also isn't suffering from 12 years of UN sanctions like Iraq was before the unilateral attack and subsequent occupation.

they are quite strong from a military standpoint and have state of the art mess you up tech like many other powerful nations that do not pose a threat.

Iran would like to see islamic power in the middle east and an end to imperialism from the western world that started at the fall of the ottoman empire. Can you blame them realy? I mean what does it take but to put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

Imagine if you will a standing islamic army in maryland that is there to rebuild your country because it is run by infidels?

The middle east has had a standing foreign army in it for a long time.

This is the beef of fundamentalist Islam, all the splinter groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah etc etc.

the whole Israel and being unrecognized is totally secondary to all of this.

you simply can't put a standing army into someone else country and expect everything to be peachy with the people.

so long as there are foreign soldier boots on their sovereign lands, there will not be peace in the middle east. plain and simple and I think they've been saying that since the 60's when they first blew up those empty planes in libya or wherever it was when modern terrorism made it's debut.

Shaolin Wookie
10-27-2007, 07:45 AM
Iran also isn't suffering from 12 years of UN sanctions like Iraq was before the unilateral attack and subsequent occupation.

they are quite strong from a military standpoint and have state of the art mess you up tech like many other powerful nations that do not pose a threat.

Iran would like to see islamic power in the middle east and an end to imperialism from the western world that started at the fall of the ottoman empire. Can you blame them realy? I mean what does it take but to put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

Imagine if you will a standing islamic army in maryland that is there to rebuild your country because it is run by infidels?

The middle east has had a standing foreign army in it for a long time.

This is the beef of fundamentalist Islam, all the splinter groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah etc etc.

the whole Israel and being unrecognized is totally secondary to all of this.

you simply can't put a standing army into someone else country and expect everything to be peachy with the people.

so long as there are foreign soldier boots on their sovereign lands, there will not be peace in the middle east. plain and simple and I think they've been saying that since the 60's when they first blew up those empty planes in libya or wherever it was when modern terrorism made it's debut.

Word.

But if we were going to attack Iran (oh, I hope we don't and November 2008 springs up before Bush ****s us up even more), we ought to wait until Ramadan. It'd be a clean sweep. Only, we'd be in a world of hurt afterwards, and we'd be worse than infidels.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:26 AM
I still say we should be focusing on Mexico. It won't be much longer before much of Mexico is a ghost town anyway. With most of thier population here, my guess is they would welcome a US invasion. We could probably do it by sending 3 cub scouts with BB guns.

Mas Judt
10-27-2007, 10:11 AM
I think the counter-point is that nothing is siply black and white, good or bad. The British empire did a lot of bad stuff - but notice the back pedaling when it is brought up. The god starts getting pointed out. Same with the US.

Truman turned Churchill down. He also refused to support European attempts at reclaiming colonies. Eisenhower, who discovered he inherited a government with deep Soviet penetration at the highest levels. (The Prime Minister of Canada flew secretlyy to Washington DC to tell Truman that his treasury secretary was a Soviet mole. What did Truman do? Promote him to head of the IMF!) All Churchill had to do was point out Mossadeqgh's socialist tendencies. From that perspective overthrowing him was seen as a service, as Soviet domination turned entire countries into prison camps.

So you can look at things from several points of view.

All I can say is: www.RonPaul2008.com ....

i don't care who you are, register republican and vote for him in your primaries... otherwise it's the choice of the big douche or the sh1t sandwich.

Mas Judt
10-27-2007, 10:14 AM
This post was incorrect.

Mas Judt
10-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Okay, I was responding to the LOL at Germany & France - who were being paid off by Saddam against the sanctions - very different from what you cited.

The rest of your posts were good arguing. I apologize. Sorry mate.

But now i have to invade England... see, I used the woord 'mate' and everything. So cosmopolitan.

Now bring back Maggie Thatcher!

Mano Mano
10-27-2007, 10:32 AM
But now i have to invade England... see, I used the woord 'mate' and everything. So cosmopolitan.

Now bring back Maggie Thatcher!
Just because we’re allies doesn’t meet we want to be the USS Great Britain again.:)

Mas Judt
10-27-2007, 01:32 PM
HEY! Are YOU in my BACKYARD? ARE YOU?

Now get me some chips. Just remember what PJ O'rourke said: The US is a kind, benevolent, virtuous country that whenever it sees villainy and tyranny in the world, we invade the country next to it.

Yao Sing
10-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Maybe the question should be will we use the Iran invasion to declare martial law and suspend the election?

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 05:16 PM
I highly doubt the election will be suspended.

Sal Canzonieri
10-27-2007, 05:16 PM
Maybe the question should be will we use the Iran invasion to declare martial law and suspend the election?

Indeed, but those people aee far from being "we", aren't they?

Yao Sing
10-27-2007, 05:38 PM
You know that and I know that but world outside the US doesn't.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 06:15 PM
If it does happen (Which I doubt), it just makes the case for becoming a Sovereign individual.

Yao Sing
10-27-2007, 06:16 PM
And you know how to do that? So how do you know you aren't?

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 06:28 PM
You open an account in a financial haven, like the cayman Islands, or Pananma, or Nevus or some other such small country not on anyone radar that has strict financial privacy laws, then denounce your US citizenship while simultaneously establishing legal residency in one or more of the small financial haven nations.

If you start a business in Panama for instance, but do all of your business outside of Panama, you have no legal tax requirements on the profits you make....unless you are still a US citizen, in which case you still owe the US tax money on your profits. The kicker is that another country does not have to report anything to the US, so the chances of being found out are just abut non existent, unless you are a drug dealer that just got busted on a grand scale. However, if you denounce your US citizenship, the US has no legal right to tax you, so you are home free. You will loose all the benefits of US citizenship though, so one might prefer to maintain a dual citizenship, and just be quiet about over seas business transactions.

Now, if we suddenly have to endure Martial law becasue of some war, I would think just out, and out moving to one of these freer countries would be more ideal. You could move to anyone of these little Carribean nations and live for half of what it cost here, and be virtually tax free legally, if you do it right....so long as you denounce your US citizenship.

You could easily fund your life through trading the US Stock & Futures markets (if you have enough initial capitol and the skills), or start an Import/Export business.

Sal Canzonieri
10-27-2007, 09:13 PM
If martial law is ever declared you will never be able to get out in time unless you walk to a remote part of the borders.

No way will you be able to fly, or even drive on the roads.

Think about it.

Once declared, that's it, we are under house arrest basically, or they come to put certain people in prison camps.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:33 PM
They can't in a million years keep the Mexicans out. There is not even remotely the man power for all that. I could cross at Mexico, or get into Canada as well.

I could also move to a friends place in Florida, from there get a private boat to the Caymans as well. Every thing I really care about would fit in a Blazer S-10. I doubt they could keep me here. There is just too many people in the US, and too little man power on thier side, ESPECIALLY if we have a war going on over seas.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:38 PM
Besides, they could never put us on house arrest, the economy would evaporate if they did that, and then they wold loose all the funding they get from tax collection.

What they would need to do is slowly add restrictions, and boil us into servitude like a frog in a pot.


Also, think about this, there have been like 12 MILLION Mexicans that have just walked across the boarders since what, 1998? How would they stop one guy from going the other way down there?

Water Dragon
10-27-2007, 09:40 PM
Congress would never allow Bush to do anything like that. By this time everyone wants him gone, even the Republicans. He has become an embarassment to the country. We're gonna have to invade Iran I think. If we leave Iraq, Iran's gonna come in and fill that power void and take over the region. What people should be talking about, in my opinion, is what needs to be done after Bush is gone to deal with this mess. I have no idea on that one.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:41 PM
Also, how on earth would they gain controll over the Ghetto style hoods around the US? You think the Lating Kings and other major rim orgs would listen to martial law? Do you even understand how much power they have?

Water Dragon
10-27-2007, 09:43 PM
Naw, the Crown's are a group of organized thugs. They wouldn't revolt, they'd try to find a way to take advantage of the situation.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:46 PM
WD,
Yeah, you have a really good point.

I personally think we will eventually go into Iran to destabilize it and break it down, so America companies can get the rebuilding contracts. This would mean we have uninhibited access to 3 Mideast nations, and thier oil. That should not only supply us with oil for the next 50 years, but it should also make massive profits for the oil companies, and the military hardware manufacturers.

I also think that no matter WHO ends up in office, it's only a matter of time before this is the course we follow.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:47 PM
Naw, the Crown's are a group of organized thugs. They wouldn't revolt, they'd try to find a way to take advantage of the situation.

Reply]
Sure, whatever profits them the most. Either way, Martial law ain't gonna controll them.

Water Dragon
10-27-2007, 09:53 PM
WD,
Yeah, you have a really good point.

I personally think we will eventually go into Iran to destabilize it and break it down, so America companies can get the rebuilding contracts. This would mean we have uninhibited access to 3 Mideast nations, and thier oil. That should not only supply us with oil for the next 50 years, but it should also make massive profits for the oil companies, and the military hardware manufacturers.

I also think that no matter WHO ends up in office, it's only a matter of time before this is the course we follow.

That's great and all, but the more pressing problem is that Iran is no Iraq. They have a signifigant, well trained military. The U.S. is stretched extremely thin right now. How do we deal with that? How do we fight a war on three fronts? Also, how does China and Russia respond? Do they do anything? Does China use the chance to take Taiwan? What about the Turks? The Syrians and the Israeli's? This thing is a diplomatic nightmare.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-27-2007, 09:59 PM
Well, if we go into Iran from Afghanistan, the Gulf, and Iraq, THEY are defending on 3 fronts. We have them surrounded now. I think it would be easier than you think. Also, there are a lot of mountains between Afghanistan and Iran. We could easily launch major bombing runs over them, but Iran would not be able to effectively send troops in becasue of the natural barriers.

All we would have to really do is have Israel cover our backs with Syria. We would not have to defend 3 fronts, only Iran would. I doubt they could do it in the light of our bombing power.

Russian and China would be the issues, and by the time they got troops there, we would be done with Iran.

If it happens though, I'm going to Costa Rica and waiting it out. I think we would see dirty Nukes going off here.

Toby
10-27-2007, 11:52 PM
Well, if we go into Iran from Afghanistan, the Gulf, and Iraq, THEY are defending on 3 fronts. We have them surrounded now. I think it would be easier than you think.You truly are insane, aren't you?

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 07:19 AM
RD - you missing the biggest f@cking point - most of the Juicy rebuilding contracts in Iraq have gone to China, Venezuela and Iran. Ummm, we are doing this why? If we actually got all the contracts I'd get it (not approve, but get it) - but this is crazy.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 10:58 AM
Really? I though that we were getting all those contracts? Aren't our oil companies getting part ownership in a lot of the oil wells down there?

If not, then it doe not make any sense.

Toby, what is insane about a 3 front attack on a surrounded enemy? How on earth could they defend a tactic like that? Not without outside help anyway.

Lessen the scale a bit, if YOU got hit form 3 different sides all at once, could you defend against that? Why would a Nation do any better?

I fail to see how surrounding an enemy and attacking them from all sides is insane. It's a sound military tactic. You would over power them, especially if you attacked from Iraq first and got them to commit most of thier troops to that front, and then after started bombing runs out of Afghanistan from behind, and missile launches from ships in the Gulf when they were not looking.

Fire up Google earth, and look at the geography and how we are positioned. Come up with a better plan if you think I am insane.

For the record, I am against being in Iraq anymore, and I don't approve of starting a war with Iran either...I do think it's coming down the pike though....it's only a matter of time.

I also doubt we will ever give up a military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, which means we have the capability to fight wars from those bases indefinitely if we so choose.

BoulderDawg
10-28-2007, 11:11 AM
I don't think the issue of tactics is important here. Truth is the invasion of Iran will be much like the invasion of Iraq. It would take 3-7 months to secure the country then the so-called "Terrorists attacks" would begin.

Funny how the US, with bigger, better weapons and technology, takes offense when a smaller less developed country, they have invaded and conquered, fights back in the only way they know how.

I think there will be an invasion of Iran. Bush and Cheney will probably do it about a year from now. It will be part of their scorched earth policy. They will invade Iran and then step watch to see how the new president will react.

Right now on the list of Presidents Bush has to be in the bottom five. Probably Grant, Hardin and Nixon are below. However if he invades Iran and that results in thousands of deaths then he will be at the bottom all by himself. I wish there was something Americans could do right now to get those two out of office.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 11:18 AM
My actual thought is that going into Iran would be to ensure a Republican victory. No one really feels safe or comfortable with a Democrat at the helm during a time of war. If he can engineer some sort of war engagement a few months before the election, the republican candidate would surley take the helm.
THAT is the reason I feel we are destined to go into Iran.

Yao Sing
10-28-2007, 01:05 PM
RD - you missing the biggest f@cking point - most of the Juicy rebuilding contracts in Iraq have gone to China, Venezuela and Iran. Ummm, we are doing this why? If we actually got all the contracts I'd get it (not approve, but get it) - but this is crazy.

What some of you guy don't realize is that the IMF controls MOST of the worlds finances. Guess what countries are still holding out against the IMF?

Mr Punch
10-28-2007, 04:50 PM
The rest of your posts were good arguing. I apologize. Sorry mate.

But now i have to invade England... see, I used the woord 'mate' and everything. So cosmopolitan.

Now bring back Maggie Thatcher!Word G. See, I'm multilingual too.


Okay, I was responding to the LOL at Germany & France - who were being paid off by Saddam against the sanctions - very different from what you cited.
Oh, OK. But while it wasn't so explicit the deals that some American companies with govt connections were making can't have been a million miles away in
terms of complicity. I'll give you that point though.


RD - you missing the biggest f@cking point - most of the Juicy rebuilding contracts in Iraq have gone to China, Venezuela and Iran. Ummm, we are doing this why? If we actually got all the contracts I'd get it (not approve, but get it) - but this is crazy.OK, the honeymoon's over, Merkin! :D Give me even just one even shady article with any proof of this: i.e. comparisons in contract sizes.

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 05:01 PM
Well we need to seperate the stuff;
The infamous Halliburton contracts - these are a part of the 'war costs'.

It was recently announced how many civilian contracts are going to China, Venezuela and ta-da - Iran. Dig around the internet a bit.

It's the end-time President's mash-up! Bush VS. Achmenijhad.

Just remember the definition of Fundametal. Funda = Bottom. Metal = Mind.

Therefore a Fundamentalist is an @ss mind.

Shaolin Wookie
10-28-2007, 05:15 PM
Also, how on earth would they gain controll over the Ghetto style hoods around the US? You think the Lating Kings and other major rim orgs would listen to martial law? Do you even understand how much power they have?

Lol....didn't John Takeshi control them? Where is that ****er anyways? And by ****er, I mean ninja.....:p

Takuan
10-28-2007, 06:20 PM
Well, we have troops east of there in Afghanistan, and West of it in Iraq. We are already positioned to go in there on 2 fronts simultaneously. Not to mention we have Naval access Via the Persian Gulf.


America: Hey guys, while we're over there, wanna **** off Iran too?

It's like a shopping trip: "Hey, on your way back, pick up some milk, and then go to war with Iran while you're at it."

-.-

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 06:35 PM
Yeah, that is about how it works...only when election time nears so the Republicans are guaranteed to stay in power.

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 06:42 PM
Let's hope it's www.ronpaul2008.com


What a world get Neocon republicans were effed. Vote in Democrats, we're REALLY effed.

Only one choice: www.ronpaul2008.com

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 06:57 PM
Maybe, but he is still a republican. If he gets in, the republican agenda will be what is the order of the day. It won't be any different than bush.

I am just going to move to here-------> http://www.thewhitecloudsanctuary.com/prices.html

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 07:30 PM
RD, you are just wrong on this. Listen to Ron Paul. Go to You Tube and listen to him over the years. If you think the Neocons are the 'Republican' agenda, you are just plain wrong.

If you think the Democrats have a different agenda, you are a fool.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 07:34 PM
Look at who pays for the Democrats and the Neocons - it is all one party. Only Ron Paul offers an option. He is doing it as a Republican because within the Republican party you have the Libertarian wing. Whereas on the left you only have dolts that have been wrong on almost everything for fifty years.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 07:46 PM
Dude, it's all one party. Ron Paul would just be thier puppet.

It's way beyond voting to fix things. No matter who is in office, things will go down the tube. Why? Because the Republicans are in controll, NOT Ron Paul if he gets in. He will just be a front piece to the parties agenda.

His previous record is irrelevant. He will be forced to do the bidding of his keepers.

Mas Judt
10-28-2007, 08:05 PM
I disagree. I think they would try to kill him, as he upsets the apple cart.

Ron Paul is certainly not anyone's puppet.

Let's give this thing a chance. Maybe it will work.

It is too easy to make blanket statements as an excuse for not taking part/trying. There is a significant part of the population that is listening to Dr. Paul.

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 08:18 PM
Sure, lots of people listen to him. He's promising freedom. Come election time, I plan to vote for him...however I am not naive enough to think it will change anything, or prevent the sinking Titanic that is our country.

Toby
10-28-2007, 08:29 PM
Toby, what is insane about a 3 front attack on a surrounded enemy? How on earth could they defend a tactic like that? Not without outside help anyway.Theoretically it's perfectly fine. Insane is even entertaining the thought that invading Iran would be a good idea. But then again I thought the same about Iraq ...

RD'S Alias - 1A
10-28-2007, 08:58 PM
Theoretically it's perfectly fine. Insane is even entertaining the thought that invading Iran would be a good idea. But then again I thought the same about Iraq ...

Reply]
Ditto...

Mas Judt
10-29-2007, 08:06 AM
Perhaps this is a Buddhist war strategy - all countries that begin with "I" watch out!

MightyB
10-29-2007, 08:24 AM
Darn it!

This is all the fire I could get?

"Now you can **** off b!tch, we're allies you ****, why can't YOU get that into YOUR THICK HEAD and stop whingeing at me and us?! We've commited proportionally more of our small army and financial resources to both Iraq and Afghanistan than any other country (at risk to other security interests) - partly becasue we're always allies, like it or not, partly because of business interests (like you and partly because some of us believe we can help the people there (like some of you).

LOL at you sniffing at our news sources, d!ckhead - YOU need to get real and get some news outside of CNN."

I'm going to lose my place below the bridge! :eek:

I throw perfectly good bombs and only one taker...
---

Anyway- I think the truth is that Iran is to the US as the US is to Iran. A big smokescreen to hide bad internal politics on both countries parts. Kind'a like gay marriage and all these other designed to inflame the populace policies.

Right now I'm concerned with how Americans are more concerned with separation of Church and State rather than separation of Business and State. It's issues and headlines like Iran that cause Americans to lose site of the things that are really affecting their lives. Like how Pharma Lobbyists wrote the Prescription Drug Plan that Congress Passed (Several Key Congressman from that Bill are now Lobbyists). I mean seriously- people care more about removing a Nativity Scene from the front lawn of a courthouse rather than all the jerk off lobyists who completely undermine the tenents of our democracy in the name of corporate greed.

Black Jack II
10-29-2007, 09:27 AM
Some could say that America and Britian must act where the international community has once again falied. In specific we are talking about Iran's own WMD program.

I would wager if we went in the strikes would be based on America's devastating air power, which from all that I have read is not yet deeply committed in Iraq. I think the math follows something like 5,000 targets can be struck in a single mission with the right configuration of B52's, B1 and B2 bombers, and that is not even counting the thousands of other warplanes and missles and range based technology that is availiable such as mini-nukes.

Strikes would be confined to suspected wmd locations, military, political and economic infrastructures. Disable that, civil war could kick in and possibly help to disable Iran further, given Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the Azeri populatin in the north and the increased rumbles with the Kurds.

Negatives would get worse, Shia dance off party in Iraq, Hizbullah getting a boner to attack Israel again, more oil price recession because the indangered barn-yard owl fellating hippes won't let us tap into our own vast oil fields here, maybe they would stone to death even more innocent women...wait they do enough of that as it is:rolleyes:

But if you apply some logic to this, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to seek a military outcome-with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argues be reduced, where is Iran is left to go nuclear then each of these threats to the US and Israeli becomes far greater.

The best outcome is one for us to talk this through....but really is that possible with people that beat people to death with stones for having sex out of wedlock??

sanjuro_ronin
10-29-2007, 10:10 AM
Some could say that America and Britian must act where the international community has once again falied. In specific we are talking about Iran's own WMD program.

I would wager if we went in the strikes would be based on America's devastating air power, which from all that I have read is not yet deeply committed in Iraq. I think the math follows something like 5,000 targets can be struck in a single mission with the right configuration of B52's, B1 and B2 bombers, and that is not even counting the thousands of other warplanes and missles and range based technology that is availiable such as mini-nukes.

Strikes would be confined to suspected wmd locations, military, political and economic infrastructures. Disable that, civil war could kick in and possibly help to disable Iran further, given Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the Azeri populatin in the north and the increased rumbles with the Kurds.

Negatives would get worse, Shia dance off party in Iraq, Hizbullah getting a boner to attack Israel again, more oil price recession because the indangered barn-yard owl fellating hippes won't let us tap into our own vast oil fields here, maybe they would stone to death even more innocent women...wait they do enough of that as it is:rolleyes:

But if you apply some logic to this, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to seek a military outcome-with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argues be reduced, where is Iran is left to go nuclear then each of these threats to the US and Israeli becomes far greater.

The best outcome is one for us to talk this through....but really is that possible with people that beat people to death with stones for having sex out of wedlock??

Worked so well in Iraq and Afgahnistan eh?
Did you just mention WMD ???? :eek:

golden arhat
10-30-2007, 08:22 AM
If you think we couldn't use Afghanistan, and Iraq to base attacks on Iran, your blind, and a bit Nieve. We occupy BOTH territories. Both are under US controll, and what little shell of governments are there, are only there at our support.

lol if u think iraq or afganistan are under anyones control u are deluded :rolleyes:

golden arhat
10-30-2007, 08:31 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

Why I hope it doesn't happen.

Granted- the whole rest of the world doesn't have the cajonies to fill the US's knickers. But, I don't think our economy can handle another one. Just think before you criticize though- if the US wasn't the US- you'd all be speaking German right now. ;)

actually i think the sovietsand theyre winters were the main reason we won the war
they were after all alot closer to europe and with a bigger army and eventual access to much larger oil fields in the balkans etc
america had an ocean to cross and had to spread its navy and army accross 2 oceans
not to mention that americas army paled in size comparrisson to russia's
where america was first letting blacks in to the services
russia had already mobilized its entire populace on the industrial front and was admitting men women and even children into the army

soviet russia was indeed the deciding factor in europe

sanjuro_ronin
10-30-2007, 08:34 AM
actually i think the sovietsand theyre winters were the main reason we won the war
they were after all alot closer to europe and with a bigger army and eventual access to much larger oil fields in the balkans etc
america had an ocean to cross and had to spread its navy and army accross 2 oceans
not to mention that americas army paled in size comparrisson to russia's
where america was first letting blacks in to the services
russia had already mobilized its entire populace on the industrial front and was admitting men women and even children into the army

soviet russia was indeed the deciding factor in europe

That and Germany spreading itself too thin and fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts.
Hmmmm, interesting no?

golden arhat
10-30-2007, 08:45 AM
Personally I think we should invade Mexico next.

i'm sure many mexicans would like that
in fact i think i heard about a movement that wants to incorporate mexico into the states

sounds like a good idea


personally i think us brits should take back places like zimbabwe and make tons of money out of them again
i'm pretty sure the majority would welcome us with open arms compared to what they have at the moment

they pretty evicdently cant govern themselves
they'd be richer
we would be richer

inflation wouldnt be at 23583495890459024 whatever percent
and people wouldnt be almost starving to death

invading a country like iraq now thats just plain stupid you should have stuck to strategically bombing them like you guys did over in kosovo

Drake
10-30-2007, 08:54 AM
We won't invade Iran. We are already overworked as it is, with our GENs saying we can't keep this up forever. They've already attested to the fact that we cannot fight another war right now. I predict us leaving Iraq slowly, but leaving a residual force there for some time. Iran, at the very absolute worst, might have their nuke facilities hit by airstrikes. At the very absolute worst.

golden arhat
10-30-2007, 09:13 AM
Word.

But if we were going to attack Iran (oh, I hope we don't and November 2008 springs up before Bush ****s us up even more), we ought to wait until Ramadan. It'd be a clean sweep. Only, we'd be in a world of hurt afterwards, and we'd be worse than infidels.

i'm sure under circumstances of war, illnes, pregancy etc fasting can be ignored
i have muslim friends and if theyre really ill etc theyre exempt

golden arhat
10-30-2007, 09:23 AM
Also, how on earth would they gain controll over the Ghetto style hoods around the US? You think the Lating Kings and other major rim orgs would listen to martial law? Do you even understand how much power they have?

not to mention the fact that many people in the U.S are armed to the teeth

lol now theres a use for guns :D

MightyB
10-30-2007, 09:59 AM
"soviet russia was indeed the deciding factor in europe"

Not really- they were a factor, but not a deciding factor. Remember that Hitler and Stalin had an agreement at the beginning- but both were quite insane. Stalin had went through a purge (killed way more of his own people than the Nazis killing of the Jews)- he had no able generals- how Kruschev survived that we'll never no- but Hitler made a couple of mistakes in how he handled the Soviets. 1st he attacked too close to winter and he didn't listen to his generals. The Soviets were under fed- under-armed, and didn't have good leadership. For whatever reason- Hitler went after Stalingrad with his 4th infantry division. Stalingrad was a slight industrial threat- it had a tractor factory- but with air power- it was insignificant. Germany could have easily bypassed Stalingrad and taken the Balken oilfields- essentially freeze the Soviets and cause them to sue for peace. As a matter of fact- that's what his generals wanted to do- but Hitler had delusions of grandeur at that time- anyway- the rest is history.

America had tremendous capacity for industrial mobilization- again- politics and history. America's ability to mass produce good weapons is what won the war on both fronts- plus some tremendous leadership by allied generals.

Long story short- you can't occupy a foreign hostile land forever- we could do well to learn that in the US.