They’ve spent enough money to be able to lob bombs at Iran, sure. And vice versa i’m sure. But neither Iran nor S.A. are going to be invading one another anytime soon. That’s the difference between them and the US.
I’m not sure how any notion of the us army as a paragon of virtue was put on or credited to me, but please lets set any such strawmen aside in future?
yes, I know. The issue isn’t if they can squabble over someone elses land. It’s if they can go head to head, and I don’t think SA could. I don’t see either one ending the other, or even trying too. I see both sides justifying spending more and more money on planes and bombs. Follow that money. Both sides.
Huh.
I voted for her. When I voted for her, I thought unfavorably of her, but not nearly as unfavorably as I thought of Trump.
Now, I just see her as a person who exists. I have neither a favorable or unfavorable view of her.
But now that you mention it, I’m kinda wondering where in the actual hell she is, and why I’m not hearing more from her about what’s going on in Trumpistan.
Follow up:
I agree with pretty much everything Camacho has to say there.
Key sentence: What he has done is cede warmaking authority to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who now reportedly has plenary power to set objectives, allocate resources, and move troops
Key sentence: “It’s in his blood,” one senior Marine officer told me. “It’s almost like he wants to get even with them.”
You appeared to be arguing that the leadership of the US military would not allow themselves to be used in a foolish and unnecessary war:
It seems I misread your meaning.
Was your argument based less around the ethics of aggression and more to do with the desire of the US military for self-preservation? Were you arguing that the US military would launch a coup if requested to perform yet another foolish invasion?
The Saudis are the strongest they’ve ever been, have the support of a powerful regional alliance and active military assistance from the USA.
The Iranians are the most vulnerable they’ve been in decades, and have no reliable allies.
But they are still within a decade of acquiring nukes if they decide to push on with that. They’ve got more reason than ever to do so now; Trump is openly attempting to destroy the Iran treaty, and has already violated it on the US’s side. Nukes may be Iran’s only chance of survival.
In return, the Saudis are very aware that their opportunity to defeat Iran may be slipping away.
The Saudi military are not a pack of untrained tribal militia these days. They’re likely to have issues with command quality, and morale may be unreliable if things go bad (both standard features of corrupt totalitarian states), but in raw firepower terms they’re a significant player. F-15s, Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, all in large numbers and backed by shitloads of infantry. The Iranians have comparable manpower, but technology that is a generation behind: Phantoms, Mirages, ancient F-14s and M-60 clones for tanks.
[quote]Spending on defense and security has increased significantly since the mid-1990s and was about US$67 billion in 2013. Saudi Arabia ranks among the top five nations in the world in government spending for its military, representing about 9% of GDP in 2013. Its modern, high-technology arsenal makes Saudi Arabia among the world’s most densely armed nations, with its military equipment being supplied primarily by the United States, France, and Britain. According to SIPRI, in 2010–14 Saudi Arabia became the world’s second largest arms importer, receiving four times more major arms than in 2005–2009. Major imports in 2010–14 included 45 combat aircraft from the UK, 38 combat helicopters from the USA, 4 tanker aircraft from Spain and over 600 armored vehicles from Canada. Saudi Arabia has a long list of outstanding orders for arms, including 27 more combat aircraft from the UK, 154 combat aircraft from the USA and a large number of armoured vehicles from Canada.
The United States sold more than $80 billion in military hardware between 1951 and 2006 to the Saudi military. In comparison, the Israel Defense Forces received $53.6 billion in U.S. military grants between 1949 and 2007. On 20 October 2010, U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history—an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The package represented a considerable improvement in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces. The United States emphasized that the arms transfer would increase “interoperability” with U.S. forces. In the 1990–1991 Gulf War, having U.S.-trained Saudi forces, along with military installations built to U.S. specifications, allowed the American armed forces to deploy in a comfortable and familiar battle environment. This new deal would increase these capabilities, as an advanced American military infrastructure is about to be built. The U.S. government was also in talks with Saudi Arabia about the potential sale of advanced naval and missile-defense upgrades.[/quote]
That “largest ever” $60bn sale in 2010 has since been followed by this:
That’s what happens when someone says “this particular one” and you hear “any other one”. I can’t help that.
I was arguing that the enlisted ranks can trust their intermediate leadership to treat them like citizen soldiers and not toy soldiers.
Why do you think any of us would hear of such a request? Well, in -this- case we might since the President would tweet out a whinestorm. The generals saying -no- is a long time thing in the civilian leadership of our armed services. Not often enough, but it happens.
I was arguing that Iran and the US have been at this a long time. We’re not going to attack them unless and until we mean it. The closest we ever came was Gulf War I when we had quite an army all dressed up without much to do, next door.
It’s not as ‘simple’ as Iraq.
Against whom?
They are, and remain, a bargaining chip. If Iran wanted nukes they would have them today.
ANd yes, the Saudi’s have a very expensive military. Look at the long list of battles they have won!
[quote=“mdh_AcerPlatanoides, post:102, topic:648, full:true”]
I was arguing that the enlisted ranks can trust their intermediate leadership to treat them like citizen soldiers and not toy soldiers.[/quote]
I feel that you are severely mistaken in that belief. My reading of US history leads me to the opposite conclusion.
The USA is a serious contender for the most aggressive nation in the history of the planet. In the entire span of the USA, there has not been a single decade in which the US military did not attack.
The longest span of peace ever tolerated by the USA was seven years: the period just before WWII, spent flirting with fascism and selling a shitload of guns.
Stupid, destructive and counterproductive invasions of weaker nations is what the US military does. They’re the world leaders at it.
Just about everyone, at the moment.
To their west, they have the Saudis. To their east, the Pakistanis [1]. North, the Russians…and from the sea, Americans.
Try to see it from their point of view. Your country spends a few centuries getting fucked by foreign imperialists [2] then just as you finally kick out the quislings and get a decent government, a new imperialist arrives. Your government is brutally overthrown by foreign intervention, and a murderous dictatorship takes its place.
When you finally manage to overthrow that bastard, you’re attacked by your neighbour in a war that makes the Somme look mild. Horrendous sacrifice by your people halts the invasion and turns the tide, but the counterattack is halted by the renewed intervention of foreign powers, both local and imperial [3]. Their interference causes this unimaginably brutal war to drag on for eight years.
A decade later, due to an event that had nothing to do with you, the imperialist that fucked you before declares you to be a member of a three-part “Axis of Evil” and immediately annihilates one of your fellow accused (who also had nothing to do with the supposed justification). Crippling economic sanctions are imposed upon your country that severely limit the ability to modernise your military.
The other surviving target in the “Axis” responds by displaying nuclear weapons. Although they’re still subject to constant rhetorical threats, their nuclear deterrence appears effective.
The foreign power then massively arms the most hostile of your neighbours, vigorously encourages them to aggression and specifically points them at your country. While apparently forming an alliance with the largest of your other historical oppressors.
If I was an Iranian, I would want nukes as fast as I could possibly build them.
.
[1] Pre-US invasion, the Afghan conflict was an Iranian-Pakistani proxy war.
[2] Russians as much as the Brits.
[3] US and Saudis primarily, but the French and Brits got in a bit as well.
My relationship with senior military enlisted officers, as well as staff officers, personally, tells me otherwise. I trust my people over the books written about them.
Which of those is going to start the war? Over what? and a follow up, when has that ever happened before?
It’s not a war that is going to happen. The US is simply closer to Iran than gets let on. Don’t take that to mean ‘influential’ - but do take that to mean ‘we don’t want to, need to, nor would be well served by wining a war against them - assuming we even could’
It’s all very scary when it’s a tabletop game, but it isn’t one of those.
The Saudis, as I’ve been arguing from the start. Most likely using Yemen as a justification.
that’s relatively terrifying, but absolutely they’re still a shrimp who would lose.
When was the last time Persia was invaded? I’ll wait.
This has been true for 30 years. SIMILARLY We are always 6 months away from wrapping up in Iraq. That’s been 15 years now.
that opportunity is all talk. What have they DONE to convince you that this ‘possobility’ is actually plausible? I don’t see it at all as plausible. Yes, they could launch cruise missiles at one another (with the US approval)… but beyond that - what actual accomplishments have the SA military under their belt?
Three of those can be disabled from the Pentagon. Also, where are the BOATS?
There’s a fair bit of water between them, if you didn’t notice that. Where are the SA Marines? Paratroops? Nowhere, because it’s not an army for invasion.
And 4000 years of entrenchments.
Military people - not as easily fooled as civilians.
1980-1988, Iraqi Army. The invasion was repulsed, but not before killing half a million Iranians.
Remember how batshit crazy the USA went after a few thousand Americans were killed in 2001? Multiply that by a hundred and drag it out over a decade of justified horror and fear.
For the last successful invasion, 1941. Anglo-Soviet.
The pause in Iranian nuclear development was due to the Iranian choice to respond to diplomatic pressure, not technical inability.
It’s their warmup/shakedown cruise. Condor Legion in Spain.
The current military technology gap between Iran and the Saudis is comparable to that between Saddam’s Iraq and the USA two decades ago. That technological difference was the primary reason why those wars were a one-sided slaughter.
The Saudis have a strong coastal navy, and they’re investing heavily in modern submarines. That’s suited for naval interdiction and bombardment, but not an amphibious invasion.
If they do intend on sending ground troops, it’ll probably be via Kuwait and Iraq. The Shia Iraqis wouldn’t be happy, but there’s not much they can do about it. The Saudis are perfectly happy to blow up Iraq as well; they see it as an Iranian client state, which is why they created and supplied Daesh to destroy it.
If they go across the Gulf, it’ll be in the ships of the USN.
Closer to 30. In 1990 I was in junior high school and we had an assignment to do some research and write a report about Desert Shield and the upcoming Desert Storm. Pretty much everyone else in the class’s report was “We’re gonna kick ass and blow 'em away in no time cuz we’re the U.S.A.!” Mine was quite different.
In retrospect, I got some of the details wrong. As it turned out, we were able to deploy and maintain a high-tech army halfway around the world, on the enemy’s home territory, without any significant logistical problems. And although we were outnumbered and outranged tactically, it didn’t really matter when the enemy mostly didn’t have ammo or morale to fight with (but we didn’t know that at the time).
However, my end analysis was that there was a very good chance that we’d get stuck fighting there for 20 or 30 years and in the end have little or nothing to show for it but a memorial. I cited Vietnam and Afghanistan (the Soviet-Afghanistan war) as examples of how I expected it to play out.
The teacher (who was a foreigner that spoke 8 languages and had traveled the world a lot) pulled me aside afterward to talk to me about it. She was surprised, gave me an A, and suggested that I not talk about my ideas to the other kids because local people wouldn’t understand.
That was 27 years ago. We’re still fighting there, have been all along, and still have nothing to show for it. And as a bonus, we’ve been mired in Afghanistan about 16 years now.
Although we’re not supporting Osama bin Laden this time, or Saddam Hussein (as we did before Desert Shield), who knows who we are supporting now that we’re going to end up fighting next? 
If you’re waiting on a legal or democratic solution to this, you’re going to wait forever. Trump is not going to be impeached or prosecuted, and there is not going to be a real election in 2018.
There isn’t going to be a flashing banner headline on CNN declaring that now is the time to resist. If you wait for the midterms, all that’s going to happen is that the GOP holds the House and there are a scattering of stories about voter suppression and intimidation. Same as usual.
If you want to save yourselves, or spare the world from the slaughter that the US military is sure to deliver, you need to take to the streets.
Not in 2018. Now.
I’ve been holding to the theory that Putin must have something on Trump beyond the golden shower tape. Video of him murdering an obviously teenaged girl, or getting fucked by a beefy Russian Sergeant.
It’s pathetic and kinda gross, but the golden shower thing really is just a routine fetish. Surely nobody would betray the democratic world just to spare themselves such petty embarrassment, especially when the details of the fetish are already widely known.
But the really depressing possibility that occurs to me: what if that is all of it?
Is Donald Trump really so pathetically insecure that he’d destroy the democratic world just in order to try to avoid the broadcast of footage of himself squealing under the urine of a couple of Russian teenagers?
For a normal, reasonable adult, you’d instantly dismiss such a ridiculous hypothesis. For the manbaby Trump, it’s regrettably plausible.
At the moment, we’re at: is there a Trump-connected business near you? Why aren’t the roads to it blocked by protesters 24/7?
Give it another six months, and it’ll be: is there a US government installation near you? Why isn’t it on fire?
I don’t see how a new American revolution happens. There are no organizations or communities that can function as an opposing force. Americans would need to see politics as something other than the ballot box and partisan social positioning.
You don’t actually need to get everyone into the streets. Just enough to block traffic, and keep it blocked until the job is done.
A few thousand people per building should do it. One protest for every property owned by Trump or any of his wealthy supporters. Get in the street, block traffic, ignore police demands to move, and stay there. You’re going to get clubbed/arrested/teargassed, and given that it’s America some of you are likely to be shot. But that’s what it takes.
The alternative is an endless wave of dead brown people.
There are three hundred million of you.