Online Game Shows Consequences of War With Iran

[TKretts3]

$7+ for a gallon of oil. I'll just resign now, before the pitchfork and torch wielding mobs come...

 

[antipunt]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

seriously if we said fuck it and went in like we did in WW2 in Germany, IE. make it so they cant put a fight for generations, the war would last about 6 months then wed have about 8 years of clean up.

The problem is, wars in this Region never could go like that. Sure, we could smash the hell out of their patchwork military in weeks and completely remove their ability to fight a conventional war, but after the allies did that to the Axis in WWII, we didn't have to worry about a bunch of German radicals suicide bombing civilian targets across Europe for the next decade, and we didn't have to worry about Japanese Americans doing the same.

Just like the simulation represents fairly accurately, anything that happens in the region will escalate terror worldwide against western targets, and going after the head of the problem has absolutely ass-all effect. You'll break the glass sword that is their shitty cold-war piecemeal military and infrastructure, and all you'll get is a metric shit-ton of shards scattered all over the region.

This is not to say I'm completely against the idea of a total *****-smack against their military if they're about to reasonably be able to aquire what they're after, as a matter of fact, and don't take this the wrong way that I'm glamorizing or anything, but overall, I think it would be a great morale victory for both a guerrilla war weary US military, and public to see that a NATO force still lays down the hurt when it comes to a conventional brawl, but the mentioned after effects would have to be considered beforehand, and the cost of getting into that situation are kind of unfathomable right now.

like i said 8 years of clean up. look i know this sounds wrong but at times "total war" is the best option. go in and make it impossible for them to do more then survive and you dont have to worry about problems comming up.
Just to add if i thought there was a peacefull way to resolve the conflict id use it but sanctions dont work and they just hold the "we wont give you oil card" if we try to make them work. Personally the next time they pull that one out i say we target their water treament plants and crops then trade embargo them.

i guess the point im trying to make is if we make them aware of how horrible it can be if we go to war with them we wont have to do it more then once.

I totally agree and I know where you're coming from, do it once, do it right, completely remove their ability and will to go for round 2. The problem is, you're not just fighting a nation in this region, they'll always turn it into an ideology/religious fight, and short of (dear lord nobody misquote me or get this out of context, I'm NOT ADVOCATING THIS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM) completely eradicating their people, there isn't a way to make them unable to fight, as they'll just reshape the war into what we've seen it become elsewhere in the region. It'll never be just a fight against another nation, it'll be warped by them into a war against their way, and we're talking about a people who hold grudges for a very. long. time.

So in short, I do agree that things will likely need to be done, I don't see this ever ending diplomatically in any good way, but even with a total war blitzkrieg smackdown, it'll still be far messier than any previous war we've ever seen. Looking at Afghanistan as an example, the coalition completely pulverized what conventional military there was in the blink of an eye, but it's still turned into the longest war in which the US has ever been involved. And it's not that the world is different, fights have always been like this in that region of the world with that culture.

I know what you guys mean. My history buff friend always told me: "you know what would've happened back in the older days? a complete pubstomp/wipeout". Take the Roman Empire with regards to the barbarian tribes for example; it's reform or get massacred. It was the way things were done back then and it was super 'effective'.

can't do things that way anymore though because of shaky international politics

 

[Kahani]

Surely the only way to win is not to play?

The game told me my decisions would matter, but no matter what I chose the same basic things still happened.

So you're saying it's a very accurate politics simulator then?

 

[Zen Toombs]

Surely the only way to win is not to play?

The game told me my decisions would matter, but no matter what I chose the same basic things still happened.

So you're saying it's a very accurate politics simulator then?

Why yes.

And is was joke, as well as reference to the Mass Effect 3 hate.

PS, props for Wargames reference.

 

[Doom972]

Surely the only way to win is not to play?

The game told me my decisions would matter, but no matter what I chose the same basic things still happened.

So you're saying it's a very accurate politics simulator then?

Why yes.

And is was joke, as well as reference to the Mass Effect 3 hate.

But I didn't even get to pick a fucking color! ME3: 1, TMHTE: 0.

 

[Zen Toombs]

And is was joke, as well as reference to the Mass Effect 3 hate.

But I didn't even get to pick a fucking color! ME3: 1, TMHTE: 0.

True facts. I found that to be a major flaw as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

The Truman National Security Project is a Democrat run think tank and the former officials listed that help to develop Tell Me How This Ends were all political appointees. This is going to be shown in the ad break of a presidential debate, so its fair to say the game is going to represent the democrat point of view. While this point of may not be invalid but this is an exercise in spin by a superpac rather than a real exploration of events.

Obviously. After all, Democrats = teh bias!

 

[Something Amyss]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

Sounds more like the fantasy version of what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Emphasis on fantasy.

 

[Dango]

It's good to know games are finally being taken advantage of as a proper medium for propaganda.

 

[Albino Boo]

The Truman National Security Project is a Democrat run think tank and the former officials listed that help to develop Tell Me How This Ends were all political appointees. This is going to be shown in the ad break of a presidential debate, so its fair to say the game is going to represent the democrat point of view. While this point of may not be invalid but this is an exercise in spin by a superpac rather than a real exploration of events.

Obviously. After all, Democrats = teh bias!

Please try reading the thread and in particular the last line of this post

The problem is, given the circumstances of its releases, its not going to have any outcomes that could possibly support a republican point of view. If you release a game purporting to be realistic look at the situation with Iran then you have to realistically look at all points of view rather than just Democratic ones. I strongly suspect the game does not have an ending that has Iran building nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the map in a nuclear 1st strike. Its only going to tell part of the story. I don't think its reliable anymore than something coming out of a Republican think tank and going out in a presidential debate.

 

[Something Amyss]

Please try reading the thread and in particular the last line of this post

Repeating it doesn't change my statement. You assumed it was partisan. You assumed wrong.

 

[Albino Boo]

Please try reading the thread and in particular the last line of this post

Repeating it doesn't change my statement. You assumed it was partisan. You assumed wrong.

Are you seriously going trying to tell me that you think that both political parties are not going to put out partisan adverts in the middle of a presidential debate, because that is what I am saying. Or are you like Hillary Clinton when she kept saying the whole Monica Lewinsky story was a right wing conspiracy? Both parties are going to try and push their point of view as hard as they can during the debate especially seeing the polls are giving mixed messages. Thats the parties job during an election, I can't think of the top my head of an occasion in any democratic election where one party has said, you know what the others guys might be right. Thats not the smartest way to win votes during an election, because the voter thinks hey if they say they could be wrong on x why are they right on a,b and c.

 

[ecoho]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

Sounds more like the fantasy version of what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Emphasis on fantasy.

actually this is exactly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bunch of whineing from the UN which did not support the US troops till we had won(except the UK who were a great help and have my respect) then pull out the second things get tough. As for that last part yeah that was a dig at Obama bitching about how Bush is responible for all his problems when in fact the man himself dug his own hole there, at least Bush took it like a man when he screwed up.

 

[Something Amyss]

because that is what I am saying.

Except you are complaining about the game based on accusations of spin and bias that don't necessarily occur. You are acting like the folks who bubble themselves off because they perceive teh bias everywhere.

Both parties will try their hardest to win voters. That does not mean that any given case will involve slant. Precluding a message from any point of view simply because of the circumstances in which they make it rather than the content of the viewpoint is ridiculous and narrow-minded.

 

[Something Amyss]

actually this is exactly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bunch of whineing from the UN which did not support the US troops till we had won(except the UK who were a great help and have my respect) then pull out the second things get tough.

Wait, we've won, then things got tough? Are you even paying attention to what you write?

As for that last part yeah that was a dig at Obama bitching about how Bush is responible for all his problems

Love them strawmen.

 

[clippen05]

The way I see it, we will never win a war in the Middle East. There are too many radicals, too many people willing to die for the cause. Similar to how military planners for the invasion of Japan expected thousands of casualties from guerilla warfare, radical Muslims will not give up. This is not to discredit those who practice Islam but its a situation where the few bad apples spoil the bunch. Even if we were to do an all out ground war in Iran (Something I would support), we wouldn't extinguish the network of ultra-military (Is that the right term?) forces who would fight guerilla warfare and terrorize are homelands. But we would be able to put a halt to Iran's nuclear program with total war, so I would support it.

 

[ecoho]

actually this is exactly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bunch of whineing from the UN which did not support the US troops till we had won(except the UK who were a great help and have my respect) then pull out the second things get tough.

Wait, we've won, then things got tough? Are you even paying attention to what you write?

As for that last part yeah that was a dig at Obama bitching about how Bush is responible for all his problems

Love them strawmen.

ok first we won the war, what going on now is called "clean up", or if you prefer restructuring. The us is now in the middle of a "guerrilla war" with insurgents despite the title this is not a war but a conflict.

Finally is it being a "strawman" if its true? I mean the guy spent the last 6 months saying that the econemy wasnt his fault because Bush left him a dogs dinner, yet its fact that in four years hes spent more then Bush did in eight.

 

[New Frontiersman]

I know what you guys mean. My history buff friend always told me: "you know what would've happened back in the older days? a complete pubstomp/wipeout". Take the Roman Empire with regards to the barbarian tribes for example; it's reform or get massacred. It was the way things were done back then and it was super 'effective'.

can't do things that way anymore though because of shaky international politics

While genocide and the wiping out entire cultures was a common way to go about things in ancient time the reason those tactics have been largely abandoned is less because of "shaky international politics" and more because of realizing the horrible moral ramifications that come from the complete extermination of a people and their culture. It's because, as a society, our values have changed and we recognize that just because Iranians have darker skin than us or a different culture than ours doesn't make them any less human, or give them any less of right to exist in peace.

Also, the Romans did in fact try to invade Iran, their efforts led to similar results to what we see in the game. It led to a centuries long war in the region, which in the end it wrecked to Roman economy and decimated their army, to the point that when the Arabs rose up united under Islam neither Rome nor Iran could defend itself directly leading to the later collapse of their civilization. So, in essence, it ended rather poorly for the Romans.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I'd play but it wants me to log in with my facebook but it keeps coming back as an error. Anyone else having this problem?

OT: Attacking or not attacking Iran is a fluster cuck either way. If we don't attack then they get a nuke and soon others in the middle east will try to get a nuke. If we do attack, well then we have to invade the country and stay there for a decade rebuilding the government we destroyed in a week.