In Comment 70 of the Newt WWII thread you said that if you were dictator we should spend more on infrastructure, including "ports".

What is the use of having ports if we don't protect our shipping?

Ron Paul and Co. seem to have a lubberly viewpoint of national security and seem to be unaware of the nature of naval power, which is not localized at or near the homeland but any point, perhaps far removed, where force needs to be concentrated.

So, Fearless Leader, what is the role of our naval forces in this confrontation with Iran?

Iran is an authoritarian theocracy. It's hardly "westernized" perhaps you were thinking of Turkey? Or maybe Iran 40 years ago?

Veta; I clearly said Iranian youth. Not Iranian regime. I'm sure you missed that part. A lot of the youth is westernized in Iran. The regime constantly has to keep their increasingly powerful protests under wraps.

Skrum: "What is the use of having ports if we don't protect our shipping?"

Your assumption that Ron Paul or myself would not protect our shipping. Our ships would still have naval escort when needed. However you a missing a major point here. Protecting your shipping doesn't mean you need bases all over the world. Certainly the rest of the world somehow protects their shipping. How do you think they do that?

I'll tell you how; they simply declare that any attacks on their shipping is an act of war. If our ships suddenly start being attacked by Iran or any other nation. Ron Paul would ask congress for permission to go to war; he would kick the ass of said nation; and LEAVE. Let them rebuild. This would set a stern warning for anyone else looking to attack our shipping. Problem solved.

But Skrum; there is also another point to be made. If we weren't going around the world bullying everyone and pretending that we are the world police; why would anyone have any reason to attack our shipping? Certainly it would be stupid to attack their own trading partner wouldn't it?

If we were trading with Iran instead of surrounding it and constantly talking of invading it. We would not be in this situation. Listen; I realize Iran threatened Israel; but that is between Israel and Iran. Let them fight each other; trust me; Israel doesn't need our help; in fact; some of their political leaders have said exactly that.

We should be staying out of their businesses and worrying about our interests. It is not in our best interest to fight everyone's battles for them; especially when they aren't even asking us to.

Skrum: "So, Fearless Leader, what is the role of our naval forces in this confrontation with Iran?"

Iran is clearly saber rattling because they sense that Israel and the USA are going to bomb it. If we weren't threatening them they probably wouldn't be even talking about the straight of Hormuz.

Last point; if we started utilizing our own natural resources; for example; our abundance of oil and natural gas. We would not even need the Straight of Hormuz. We should be producing our own oil and/or buying it from Canada's oil sands.

If we did this. Then the closure of the Hormuz straights would mean diddly squat to us. In fact; it would be more of a threat to European countries then us. Let them figure it out.

Oops; should be "Your assumption that Ron Paul or myself would not protect our shipping is incorrect."

Btw; I believe that the Iranian regime is a backwards regime and extremely dangerous to it's neighbors. But why the hell is that our problem? There are plenty of countries that are backwards and extremely dangerous to it's neighbors.

We only care about the region because of the oil. Look I know a lot of the oil was originally ours and was nationalized by nations in the region; but the time to defend it has long passed. We need to move on and start making this country into a powerhouse again. Let these silly regional conflicts be a problem for those actually in the region.

Sometimes; in KDice you need to re-base and re-stack.

Your strategy is like being in 1st; spreading yourself thin; and then starting belligerent arguments with all our neighbors and demanding respect.

You know how that game ends.

you talk about propaganda wars yet "Soon we will probably be bombing all the westernized Iranian youth" is very similar to the sensational tone that is often used in those propaganda news coverages.

I know what you mean and it's true that if Iran gets bombed at one point, innocent people will get killed unfortuantely but you make it sound like they would be targetted. If there would be attacks, I'm pretty sure the targets would be only military and nuclear facilities. I hope military leaders in the Western world have learned from the mistakes in the past and realise that "trying to help" will not easily be seen as "help" from the attacked people's point of view. So some form of propaganda in the country you are trying to liberate is crucial.

I'm defenitely not in favour of bombings, even though I think the people who are trying to stand up against the totalitarian regime in Iran need to be supported somehow

And if you are talking about Somali pirates attacking our ships.

Why not handle it the same way James Madison did when our ships were being attacked by the Barbary Pirates. Issue letters of marque; watch how fast that bullshit stops.

I understand what you are saying Jurgen; but I think the problem is that even though the youth in the nation are fighting against the regime for their freedoms. Almost all western intelligence agencies agree; that attacking Iran would unite everyone with the regime for nationalistic reasons.

For example; in the USA there are those who dislike Obama so much that they would do almost anything to get his Administration out of power. However if a nation attacked us. Everyone would rally behind Obama; including me.