Iran has mountains

[underpants]

Cain: It’s Not ‘Practical’ To Attack Iran Because It Has Mountains

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/16/369994/cain-attack-iran-mountains/

JOURNAL SENTINEL: Would you favor a military strike against Iran to stop that country from developing a nuclear capability?

CAIN: That is not a practical, top-tier alternative and here’s why. If you look at the topography of Iran. Where are you going to strike? It’s very mountainous. That’s what makes it very difficult


This view does differ slightly from what Cain said last July. The Washington Times reported that the former pizza CEO “dismissed the notion that an attack on Iran is unrealistic.”

[livetohike]

1. And Afghanistan doesn't? What an idiot n/t

[kickysnana]

11. And we are doing so well in Afghanistan. n/t

[arcane1]

2. If only we had machines that coule fly over mountains

:eyes:

Though at least I agree with him that attacking Iran would suck.

[babylonsister]

3. lol! Machines flying over mountains; what a concept! nt

[shraby]

4. Yup, Iran can fight back...not like Saddam and Afghanistan.

They can probably hit pretty hard.

[ashling]

5. Maybe a hot air baloon

Cain could keep it aloft

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. Just don't use those attack elephants Hannibal had so much trouble with

in crossing the Alps.

[underpants]

7. Would they have to expensive type machines?

something we would have to replace regularly?

Would that be really costly?

:thumbsup:

[ellisonz]

6. Idiot.

[montanto]

8. Everyone knows that where theres mountains, theres not enough room

for things to twirl around and around. Like in Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan. Thats why we never fought there. Its difficult.

[treestar]

9. OK I'm really getting convinced he meant the candidacy as

some kind of joke or publicity stunt.

[Glimmer of Hope]

12. I think he is serious and everyone should let him play out his delusion

for awhile longer.

[jberryhill]

10. Okay, what about Ubekibekibekistanistan?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. He gets better every day - surpassing Michael Steele!

[sofa king]

14. Hate to say it, but that's the smartest thing I've seen him say.

He's right, you know. The topography of Iran makes it just as unsuitable for invasion and occupation as Afghanistan is. The problem is compounded by the fact that western interests have nothing at all to do with those mountains, and there is no base of support for an invader, as there was in Afghanistan.

What we (as in we, the oil companies) want are the coastal plains along the Persian Gulf, to include Iran's major submarine base, its nuclear power plant, and the last untapped major oil find of the past fifteen years, which also happens to be underneath that nuclear power plant we pretend to care so much about.

But if we steal that territory, millions of armed mountain rednecks are going to pour out of the foothills to patriotically die in droves, a disaster that would be high in human cost and which has the potential to overwhelm any planned theft of resources. So the invaders will have to hop over a couple of ranges in order to protect the plains territory. Once the invaders are stuck in the mountains, initiative is lost and the Iranians can harass the occupiers for decades.

The longer the Iranians can hold out in the mountains, the greater the chance that Russia and China will be drawn into the conflict in hopes of scoring a sweetheart deal for the Bushehr oil.

So yeah, I have no doubt Cain's opinion was derived from fallacious and highly ignorant premises, but he happens to be accidentally right.

[Enrique]

16. he got his talking points mixed up ("no, that's the other one")

the mountainous terrain of Iran would be a good answer if he was talking about whether to invade Iran, as you point out.

But the military strike everyone is talking about would not be an invasion, and is very much do-able, by the United States or by Israel. In fact there was a good chance of it happening during the Bush administration, but cooler heads prevailed.

[sofa king]

18. Don't I know it!

Allow me to wallow in the fabulous incorrectness of this prediction of mine, from September, 2007:

If and when America does invade Iran, sometime before the end of the month, Israel may be inclined to preemptively attack Syria. Or, they may be wishing to send Syria a warning that Israel can do such a thing at their convenience.

In either case, probing the Syrian radar defenses is a necessary first step, to better evaluate the Syrians' state of readiness and competence.

Obviously, ahem, cooler heads prevailed. Either that, or I was totally full of shit!

[JoePhilly]

15. I think he fell off a mountain and hit his head. Multiple times.

[Life Long Dem]

17. Cain has proven...

that he is a little clever when it comes to joking around, but that's where it ends. No wonder he started his campaign clowning around saying this country needs a laugh or two.

[Swede]

20. Isn't it near Uzbeki-beki-beki-stanistan?