![]() |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but all these guys really want is the oil fields, I think - a few Neocons may actually pine for the good old days when Iran was our own Colony in the Middle East. [/ QUOTE ] I don't buy this. Look at what's happened in Iraq with Iraqi oil - how has Iraqi oil production changed since? Further, the logistics of physically occupying just Khuzestan, let alone occupying it and ensuring oil production reaches our borders, would be immense. [/ QUOTE ] they are going do something with Iran, and they CANNOT occupy it like they do Iraq - no way - it would be obscenly costly both for civilians, US troops, and much more destructive - Iran has been known to raise BRIGADES of suicide troops - that's how they started turning the tide of the Iran/Iraq war before we started selling arms to our buddies in Iraq in the 80's But if you have the population in the north and a massive inhospitable desert between you and the bombed out capital (which will probably look a lot like Lebanon when done), you would have a much easier time defending that part of the country there in the south. Just like Hitler retaking the Rhineland - just a little bump on our overall front line between Iran and Iraq - Especially if you've been playing to the loyalities of the tribesmen in the area - this isn't a stretch - it's the same thing we did in Afghanistan and Iraq - we find a local insurgency or tribe with a desire to fight the head of the state and then we fund it and they become our allies vs. the main powers - just like the Afghan Rebellion and the Kurds in Iraq. If we do what I think we're going to do, it'll be the third time we've done it in the Middle East under this president, so it is emminently doable. rb |
|
|