U.S may goto war with Iran

[bluekingskin]

Thing is, if USA go to war with Iran, Gordon Brown will be all "Uh-huh, we go to, gobble gobble gobble turkey neck"

I'm waiting for the day they get a pre-emptive strike in, England and USA will eventually have bombs go off on home soil. Not like suicide bombers, but an actual attack.

I am not proud to be British, because our governemt gives us a bad name.

Just gonna have to wait and see with this one.

[unopescio]

You cant win a fight against people using guerrilla warfare, simple as that. If the US goes into Iran its going to be the same old sh*t, they'll waste enormous amounts of money only to pull out silently in 10 years or whatever, leaving a totally f*cked up and destroyed country behind.

[Black-hawk]

So uh, what right does the US have to enforce its requests on other countries? What if Europe told the US to stop developing military hardware because the US is a potential danger to world peace?

 

Seriously, this country needs to implode on itself.

[stinomontana]

amerika is the country that started the most wars woldwide

and still they havent won any

anyone noticed that they never had a war i their own country? (besides pearl harbor)

it would be a massacre, look at 9/11

if you guys keep doing this id say that russia europe china and the east (iraq n stuff) will invade amerika within 30years

now i dont got anything against amerika, but i hate that they think the world belongs to them

Edited March 16, 2010 by stinomontana

[ghost of delete key]

 

Honestly, what is not to love about GoDK. Sometimes he makes me feel like writing a poem.

 

Make it a haiku.

 

I dare you.

 

 

 

 

@ Cilogy:

 

 

Your meds just kick in?

 

 

Here, let's turn the tables for a minute.

 

Suppose the Ku Klux Klan got pissy with... say France, because they support some hated African country.

Now suppose the KKK go to France and start burning crosses in their front yard because they're trading with and supporting Liberia.

 

Now suppose France sends forces to Tennessee to squash the KKK.

 

"But Pierre, why go to America? They're not an American Force, nor Military."

"Ahh, c'est tres vrai, but zees ees wair zey are, mon ami. Zey wheel be crushed."

 

And once France bombs the holy piss out of Lynchburg (because of Gomer's local bigwig-ties), they discover that ol' Gomer is hiding out in the northern Rockies. Maybe.

Maybe he's down in the Sonora though... no, wait! He's hiding out somewhere in the Kill Devil Hills.

Or possibly in Canada somewhere.

Mexico is nearby and accessible as well.

 

Oh hell, they even got little camps throughout North and Central America.

Hope you brought a lot of bombs, Pierre.

 

Besides, how are the Gendarmes supposed to convince all the States to re-arrange their "priorities" and band together under a strong central government of European design? This is a loose collection of independent States comprising hundreds of cultures and ethnic tribes.

 

And the KKK are no single State's creation, yet are their collective problem, since they are locals and locally present, and are often the local Sheriffs, Judges, and other "tribal leaders"...

 

So the problem for Pierre becomes dire: exactly who are we fighting, and how to do it effectively? France has no beef with Kentucky and it's people, or Maryland... but they know that's where the problem lives.

 

 

Now before I go all rambly, let's change some names around.

KKK -> Taliban

France -> USA

Liberia -> Israel

Lynchburg -> Baghdad

America -> Afghanistan

etc -> etc

 

So what does one do when the troublemakers hide in any yard they can?

Do you just let them run amok because you have no beef with the legitimate locals?

 

What do you do when they hide in a country that really isn't a Country, except on a map?

Do you suppose to go in and convince all the locals that You know better and you're there to "build a democracy"? Out of a wide array of loosely associated tribes and states?

 

 

Lemme set y'all straight on the US Military position...

Armed Forces are deployed to secure US safety and interests abroad.

 

You do know that deploying troops to Iran or Iraq or wherever in no way implies that there is a conflict of State, like the classic examples of WWII.

It simply means there's a problem in that backyard that is affecting us here, and needs to be taken care of, or taken out.

 

There's not a single mook here that would disagree with a straight face, that if there's a problem in a neighbor's house that directly affects us, we have the right to seek to fix that problem.

That doesn't mean we dislike the neighbor per se, we just need to get and fix the problem.

Of course, failure on the neighbor's part to recognize the problem and help fix it MAY strain relations...

 

 

 

It's all exactly the same, so FFS, let's stop with all the America-bashing around here.

 

And all the other self-loathing is not a good look either.

Don't be ashamed to be British or American or Iranian or whatever...

be ashamed to be ignorant.

Get informed using your own eyes and ears, and apply logic uniformly.

Stop letting NPR or FOX or Auntie Mabel tell you what your opinions are.

 

You may never have The Answer, but that's ok, at least you can see the Real Question.

 

 

 

I'm waiting for the day they get a pre-emptive strike in, England and USA will eventually have bombs go off on home soil. Not like suicide bombers, but an actual attack.

I see you got into Cilogy's medicine cabinet.

Your wonky punctuation and vague pronoun leave me wondering who do you mean, but more to the point:

What the hell do you consider 9/11?!?

That wasn't an "actual attack"?

 

With 2 commercial jets and as many buildings, The Enemy hit offensively with the hardest force of any in history.

 

It took the Japanese Forces all morning with more than 350 planes to work at sinking 18 ships and destroying hundreds of aircraft, and they still didn't kill as many people as al-Qaeda did.

So really, just wtf are you waiting for? Another opinion ready for spoon-feeding?

 

Dude, please wake up, or shut up.

Just lookin' out for ya.

It's a rough neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

 

I had more to say, but screw it.

I made my point.

[Mad Tony]

Woohoo! USA IS NUMBER ONE! WOOHOO!!!

 

Remember: Iran is a fascist, communist, Marxist, socialist, Islamic state which is inherently evil. It is un-American, therefore we should destroy it.

 

USA! USA! USA! f*ck THE WORLD!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its things like this that make me feel ashamed to be American sometimes.

I don't understand, we're not going to war with Iran. So you're ashamed to be American why? How long have people been saying the US will invade Iran? From what I can remember people have been saying it for AT LEAST 5 years. Jay hit the nail on the head.

 

 

[RomanViking]

ghost of delete key, you seem smart and witty. Obviously my post won't be as good. And this post will be delving off topic. But...

 

Pearl Harbor, (wikipedia) 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed, 2,402 personnel were killed and 1,282 were wounded...

 

And a bunch of stuff was blown up too. Pretty bad I'd say.

 

But...

 

The acute effects (of the nukes) dropped on Japan (by America) killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

 

So lots of radiation poisoning and burns, etc...

 

 

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

 

 

 

 

And Mad Tony is annoying with his blind patriotism. And obviously outraged over anything negative things being said about the United States

 

And Cilogy is ashamed because his country's government consistently makes really bad decisions and refuses to learn anything from past mistakes.

 

I'm ashamed too.

[jimmy.]

And people said Obama wanted to "change" things.  Didn't they also say he'd withdraw the troops form the middle east?

Er, yeah, that's why he IS pulling out troops and has set up an intricate timetable for pulling all major combat units out of Iraq by the August 2010 and have all troops out by 2012. Moron.

what about permanent bases in iraq? do you really think these will be given up?

[Mad Tony]

 

And Mad Tony is annoying with his blind patriotism. And obviously outraged over anything negative things being said about the United States 

 

And Cilogy is ashamed because his country's government consistently makes really bad decisions and refuses to learn anything from past mistakes.

 

I'm ashamed too.

Pot calling kettle black don't you think?

 

You call me blindly patriotic for pointing out that it's highly unlikely that we'll invade Iran but then go onto present an extremely skewed and biased view of the Pacific Theater of war in WWII. Should I say you have a blind hate for the US now?

 

All I said was that people have been saying we're going to invade Iran for years but it's never happened and it probably wont happen anytime in the foreseeable future. That's it. How is that blind patriotism or being outraged? It's called being realistic.

 

Pretty much all governments make bad decisions. Being ashamed of your nationality because of your government is IMO, rather silly. And no, I'm not outraged.

 

Also, inb4 blind patriotism. I know if you show anything less than pure hate for America you're branded as blindly patriotic by most people on here, but come on.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Mad Tony

[Fnorg]

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

Way to over-simplify, bro.

[Mad Tony]

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

Way to over-simplify, bro.

Over-simplify and omit key things such as the Japanese atrocities.

[Runey]

You cant win a fight against people using guerrilla warfare, simple as that. If the US goes into Iran its going to be the same old sh*t, they'll waste enormous amounts of money only to pull out silently in 10 years or whatever, leaving a totally f*cked up and destroyed country behind.

There.

 

Too bad our military leaders don't have this much god-damned common sense.

 

Also, invasions don't work when you're fighting against religious extremists. You might kill a few here and there, but does it really make a difference, when they're willing to blow themselves up for the sake of killing a few people? I swear, for the "most powerful" military in the world, America sure has some dumb f*ck leaders. And have for a while.

[Oxidizer]

now i dont got anything against amerika, but i hate that they think the world belongs to them

As do I.

 

Iran will also kick yanky butt also.

[RomanViking]

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

Way to over-simplify, bro.

Over-simplify and omit key things such as the Japanese atrocities.

like the nanking massacre? where they were being real cruel to koreans. Butchered like 100,000..

 

yeah I know. Most countries have a bad record. The difference is the US is often full of itself, like "it's our duty as the most powerful nation" and "the greatest nation" etc...

 

What other country today goes into other countries and tries to force their system on that country?

 

And is constantly telling other countries to disable their nukes, when America is the only country to actually have used them before.

 

Yeah nukes should be disabled, everywhere.

 

i dunno, flame me, whatever.

[ghost of delete key]

 

amerika is the country that started the most wars woldwide

and still they havent won any

 

How did I miss this gem?

Look, I understand that what passes for classroom History today is quite... lacking, but you can't even learn that?

This is what happens when Lil' Stino plays with his DS (or his weewee) in school with his head up his ass, instead of paying attention and getting a clue.

 

I'll forgo the easy hack at your atrocious grasp of language, and move right on to the meat...

 

anyone noticed that they never had a war i their own country? (besides pearl harbor)

What the hell do you call the Revolutionary War of 1776?

What about the War of 1812 when the British Crown tried to take back the lost Colonies?

What about...

The French and Indian War

The Spanish-American War

The Mexican War? Have you forgotten the f*cking Alamo?!

How about the American Civil War!

<facepalm>

You must be white and 12 years old, huh.

MY GOD, MAN! OPEN A HISTORY BOOK AND USE IT TO DO MORE THAN CLEAN THE SEEDS OUT OF YOUR POT!!!

 

 

it would be a massacre, look at 9/11

<facepalm #2>

 

if you guys keep doing this id say that russia europe china and the east (iraq n stuff) will invade amerika within 30years

<facepalm #3>

 

now i dont got anything against amerika,

sh*t, how can we tell?

 

but i hate that they think the world belongs to them

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS SH!T?

*choke*gasp*

Somebody get my inhaler...

I suppose your next proud assertions will be that men never set foot on the Moon, you personally know Bigfoot, and the Sun shines from your anus. Ammirite?

You rush into these forums with all the glee and skill of a chimp smearing poop on the walls.

Really. That much.

 

Someone PLEASE get this kid a helmet, and put mattresses below all the windows.

Lord help him if he suddenly believes he can fly.

 

@ Black-hawk:

See my last post.

Every nation with more than a pea-shooter holds such sovereign rights.

Get over your New-Age Idealism.

 

Now, RomanViking's turn:

(and introducing the Cred-O-Meter!)

-.....^.....+

 

 

ghost of delete key, you seem smart and witty. Obviously my post won't be as good.

Obviously.

Well, you're on the mark so far; 2 pts...

-.....0.^...+

 

 

Pearl Harbor <facts, figures>

doing a little homework, effort; 2 pts...

-.....0...^.+

 

 

But...

The acute effects (of the nukes) dropped on Japan (by America) killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

 

So lots of radiation poisoning and burns, etc...

 

WHOAH!!!

Wait right there one minute!

 

Are you seriously equating a protracted retaliatory action against an aggressor with

an unsolicited surprise offensive strike by an aggressor?!

 

Yes, the number of deaths is orders of magnitude disparate.

No, they are not even remotely the same thing, in fact polar opposites, and see my original post again with BOTH eyes open...

 

The Enemy hit offensively with the hardest force of any in history

Wait- maybe you missed that...

 

The Enemy HIT OFFENSIVELY with the hardest force of any in history

once more for good luck?

 

The Enemy HIT OFFENSIVELY with the hardest force of any in history

 

So then there's no need to pick at this:

 

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

Not exactly. They did have all their sand turned to glass though.

The US held back excessive force as long as humanly possible before giving AMPLE WARNING to the boys in the Main Office long in advance of the deed. They failed to evacuate the cities in which they "cleverly" hid military assets amongst the civilian population.

So the civilian deaths cannot be placed on US hands as such.

 

It was done to prevent further protraction of the War.

 

 

IT WORKED.

 

 

IT HAS NEVER BEEN NEEDED SINCE.

 

 

See, people can learn and improve.

 

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

Yeah, we just covered that, and that reminds me...

-^....0.....+

that pretty much slams the needle to the left peg, buddy.

 

Style only goes so far.

Substance is everything.

 

 

And Mad Tony is annoying with his blind patriotism.

Mad Tony is patriotic. Too bad someone with your eagle-eye can't see how it's not "blind".

 

And obviously outraged over anything negative things being said about the United States

<more facepalm>

well, first of all, you need to be able to discern the difference between "negative statements" and unmitigated bullsh*t.

I happen to disagree with MT on many details, but honestly, I've never once seen him do anything but counter BS with Fact. You can take that to the bank.

 

If someone talks bullsh*t smack on you and yours, you gonna just smile and go on?

Yeah, I bet you do.

That's why they love you in da hood, huh.

 

 

@ jimmy: I don't think OdDsOcK stopped to think about that, much less anything else.

Fo'real, nobody's going anywhere.

But sh*t like that makes GREAT campaign promises. Gets you elected, nahmeen?

 

@ Runey.:

Mmkaaayy... so what is your rank again? Sorry, I forgot your military credentials.

But you are onto something there about purpose and scope of mission.

If you ever get the chance to study the military IN the military, you'll find out exactly how that ties into morale and efficacy.

I'm glad to see you've put in the mindpower to think your way past those slackers back at the Pentagon.

Think there's room on your chest for another medal between all those service ribbons?

 

@ Gronf:

lets facepalm together. Ready, on three...

It'll be classic, like the Star Trek picture.

 

@ Oxidizer:

O moth at the flame,

Why do you fly so boldly?

The fire eats your wings.

 

Hell, I had to attach some meaning to your presence.

 

... and sofa_king hasn't come forth with my haiku yet.

 

Anyway, you guys are a real hoot.

Can't wait to see what comes next.

[macorules94]

I actually thought that Iran and Iraq were the same country

 

[Otter]

Well, GodK, you sure are doing a good job of making these kids look like...eh... kids?

 

I love ya. But I'd love to see more talk about the actual topic, as it interests me. If we were to give the American government ideas about how to wage a successful war with minimal to none casualties on both sides, how would we go about it?

 

I mean, it seems to me that there are so many new weapons of civil unrest at our disposal. So many ways to literally jumpstart revolutions that simply haven't been viable until now. Imagine a war where not one piece of artillery is fired by the Americans. Is it possible?

[Mad Tony]

So, yeah... Japanese kicked over American sand castle, Americans got back by murdering and raping their whole family, then burning down their house.

 

I'd say what the American's did was 1000 times worst than what Japanese did.

Way to over-simplify, bro.

Over-simplify and omit key things such as the Japanese atrocities.

like the nanking massacre? where they were being real cruel to koreans. Butchered like 100,000..

 

yeah I know. Most countries have a bad record. The difference is the US is often full of itself, like "it's our duty as the most powerful nation" and "the greatest nation" etc...

 

What other country today goes into other countries and tries to force their system on that country?

 

And is constantly telling other countries to disable their nukes, when America is the only country to actually have used them before.

 

Yeah nukes should be disabled, everywhere.

 

i dunno, flame me, whatever.

The US has only invaded two countries recently you know, Afghanistan being nothing to do with "forcing our system onto another country". Iraq is a complex topic and I'm not gonna go into that and derail the thread even more.

 

When it comes to invading countries under dictatorships the US certainly can't win though. Obviously a lot of people were unhappy with the invasion of Iraq but at the same time people often call on the us to "liberate" countries like Burma and Zimbabwe.

 

America is indeed the only country ever to have used nukes before, but that was before any realized the true horrific power of them. You'd have to be mad to think that America, Russia, China, France or any of the other main nuclear powers would ever use them today.

 

That's never going to happen though. Also, nukes certainly have their uses. I'm a firm believer that the reason why there wasn't a full-scale war between America/NATO and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is because of the large stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides.

 

Why would I flame you?

[sofa_king]

 

... and sofa_king hasn't come forth with my haiku yet.

 

 

 

Ghost fills me with glee

I feel like a bird in spring

ghost who lifts the spirit

 

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

 

I mean, it seems to me that there are so many new weapons of civil unrest at our disposal.  So many ways to literally jumpstart revolutions that simply haven't been viable until now.  Imagine a war where not one piece of artillery is fired by the Americans.  Is it possible?

Maybe EMP?

 

Oh wait, the only known way to create an EMP is through a nuclear detonation... scratch that.

[Otter]

I mean, it seems to me that there are so many new weapons of civil unrest at our disposal.  So many ways to literally jumpstart revolutions that simply haven't been viable until now.  Imagine a war where not one piece of artillery is fired by the Americans.  Is it possible?

Maybe EMP?

 

Oh wait, the only known way to create an EMP is through a nuclear detonation... scratch that.

Heh. Something in the sky, maybe?

 

But I think EMP could be counterproductive. Look at the worldwide support that protestors in Iran gathered simply because of twitter. Very powerful stuff, Ashton Kutchers aside.

[ghost of delete key]

twitter.

Ouch. You hurt my brane. But spot-on.

 

@ sofa:

I'm haikuku for sofa-puffs!

 

@ JEH420:

 

back @ Otter:

 

You always think way beyond the pack, but yes, this brings us back to the real topic, and them there are some mighty good questions.

 

If we were to give the American government ideas about how to wage a successful war with minimal to none casualties on both sides, how would we go about it?

War is what it is.

War is a Bitch.

When a state engages in war responsibly, they take measures not to involve the civilian population.

To do so would constitute a hostile act on a people, tantamount to a sacking of the populace.

In any event, casualties will still happen, and this is an accepted risk.

 

A rash and irresponsible leadership would take cowardly measures, such as embed military assets in civilian populations in an attempt to leverage the opponent's moral high-ground.

 

An illegitimate leadership will not have a proper flag under which to unite and rally in the name of War, and will forgo the formality of Regular uniform.

 

These tactics are far too frequently seen in conflicts such as the current amorphous war against terrorists around the world.

 

I say that situations like this are a necessary step in the evolution of diplomatic conflicts and their resolution.

Or rather, peace and its implementation.

 

Of course, you cannot permit the enemy to maintain their assets unhindered, therefore you develop methods to eliminate those assets with the least civilian mortality possible. But certainly, again, casualties will still happen, and this is an accepted risk, yadda yadda.

 

The way I see it, no matter how evolved and sophisticated are the tactics, war is still war, and therefore will necessarily be doomed to follow two steps behind moral conjecture upon its implementation.

War will always be that bastard stepchild, so you gotta do what you gotta do, but you gotta do it well and right.

 

 

In short,

"git 'r' done."

[Typhus]

Iran is a threat. But I believe that with the level of dissent there we have other options. I would rather use the media to promote an Atheistic agenda rather than outright force. If you ask me, by removing their religion you are removing the lunatic fringe who will continue to be elevated to power.

Look at the protests, people want change. We just have to be patient and slowly erode their faith in God, also we could try pumping their nation with cheap drugs, get the little people hooked and watch them tear themselves apart.

[Suihkubad]

Another war? That would be crazy. How is that going to get us out of debt?

Fun thing to think. USA needs money. They go to their Central Banks(was it Federal Reserve or something i don't know) and ask for money. Someone presses a button and dollars appear out of nowhere. Then they ask for intrest. How is USA supposed to ever pay that dept if the money needed to pay back doesn't exist?

 

Some day system will realize that it doesn't make sense and USA's economy will collapse.

[Otter]

Yes, Typhus, that's what I'm getting at. Inciting the already boiling masses of unrest. There are many ways that this could be achieved. Call them underhanded or even illegal, but I think war has to evolve beyond hitting each other with sticks, or throwing wave after wave of soldiers against IEDs.

 

There are many things that America excels at that can be used to promote civil unrest in Iran. First and foremost - capitalism. Starbucks and McDonalds, bastard sideeffects of capitalism run amok, can actually be useful in literally warping people's way of life. "Hey, look at me, Mohammed, I can buy American coffee. Maybe I should stop beating my wife for showing her face in public, and share a Big Mac with her instead, like real Americans!"

 

Goofy extreme, I know. But how about films? Modern propaganda for the western way of life? Released directly to the internet. For free. Persian language included, either dubbed or subtitled. For the cost of a battleship, imagine how many films the government could buy the rights to and deploy.

 

Or what about the real brass tacks? The paparazzi. Who needs the CIA, when you've got TMZ on your side? Get photos of philandering fundamentalists. Take a picture of Aminidenijad taking a sh*t or whacking off to gay porn. Boom. Assassinated.

 

 

 

 

Or we could just rely on actual assassination.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Otter

[Typhus]

Goofy extreme, I know. But how about films? Modern propaganda for the western way of life? Released directly to the internet. For free. Persian language included, either dubbed or subtitled. For the cost of a battleship, imagine how many films the government could by the rights to and deploy.

Not extreme at all. Very, very smart.

It's time we gave democracy some teeth. All men desire freedom, the youth of Iran must see how people in our civilised nations live and I dare say that they are envious. The message must be that they can obtain this freedom if the old guard simply goes on a long holiday at the bottom of a river.

Anything that can both acheive our aims and avoid loss of life on our side will be very welcome. Unfortunately, many Iranians will likely die, the Jihadists won't give up without a fight. But that will only make them more determined to hold on to their liberty.

The ideal situation would be the emergence of a secular Iranian republic that is open to inspection and scrutiny. Anything that can acheive this and give us a diplomatic edge in the Middle East will be a welcome blessing. The west really needs some good PR over there.

[ghost of delete key]

@ Otter: I should say that all of those tactics are in practice to some degree or another.

 

You already mentioned Twitter, and that was simply serendipitous.

 

But the CIA and military already support the other methods you mention.

 

 

@ Suihkubad:

You have a fairly solid summary of what's going on with our Federal Reserve at the moment.

 

But as far as pcguytech's question goes, going to war doesn't fatten the bottom line.

The common perception was that wartime economies boom due to the market demand that the War Effort represents. The Gov has to buy their bullets from someone, right? But when markets are artificially manipulated to the degree they are now, and then the Federal Reserve prints more dollars to cover the volume on paper, this devalues the products in demand, stifles circulation of income through healthy economic channels, and lowers the overall GDP.

 

 

by removing their religion you are removing the lunatic fringe who will continue to be elevated to power.

Nope. This is not a war against a religion. It is a war against individuals with a lunatic ideology.

You wouldn't recommend eliminating Christianity just because some backwards Klansmen perverted the Cross and claimed religious Righteousness as their moral shield over their agenda of racism and genocide...

it's the same exact thing. Only the names are different.

[Otter]

If the ideology's fundamental background is a religion, it only makes sense to support an alternative, no? Even if it were an alternative to Christianity. Even if the Klan were ever to gain control of a nation or become a viable threat rather than a group of gold ol' boys who aren't worth the the stupid sheets they wear.

 

However, obviously western partners would not be fond of usurping their own ideologies in this hypothetical.

[860]

So uh, what right does the US have to enforce its requests on other countries? What if Europe told the US to stop developing military hardware because the US is a potential danger to world peace?

The Us wouldn't have to do anything. They don't take orders from Europe (which is a continent by the way). You can't just go "waa waa pwease Iwan stop making bombs ;___;". A country doesn't need to take orders from another. But then someone says "hey, we're gonna kick yer ass if you don't stop makin' them bombs!". So the country either stops making them bombs or defends itself.

 

You either take action or stop crying.

[ghost of delete key]

If the ideology's fundamental background is a religion, it only makes sense to support an alternative, no? Even if it were an alternative to Christianity. Even if the Klan were ever to gain control of a nation or become a viable threat rather than a group of gold ol' boys who aren't worth the the stupid sheets they wear.

 

However, obviously western partners would not be fond of usurping their own ideologies in this hypothetical.

See, now you're walking the mile in those shoes. It certainly does get complicated.

 

But backtracking, where do you draw any clear lines to define "religion" and "ideology"...

Of course, the more 'basic' the definition, the more cleanly separated the factions become.

We can assume a religion is, as in its common sense, an established, widely-accepted and practiced philosophy,

whereas an ideology may be classified in this context as a subset of a religion, in that while it derives from, and bears many elements of that religion, is neither established or widely accepted and practiced.

This is clear enough to make the distinction between Christians and radical offshoots like the Klan, or Islam and the radical offshoot Taliban.

 

And to further the weird parallel universe, remember that that "good ol' boy's club" was, and still is, populated by many locally powerful and influential individuals, from the Town level to the State.

 

Remember that the States themselves are really Independent Sovereign States, much like the tribal regions of Afghanistan. The main difference is in the substance of the glue that holds these collections of independents together.

 

So in the big picture, the players are small and few, they happen to exert great influence from the grassroots upward.

 

 

I just had a crazy thought:

Could you imagine exactly how the Civil War would have fought given today's technology?