Picking Cain's Brains

[LMNO]

Very impressive.  Both the split, and the insight.

Someday, I hope to be able to comment intelligently on this sort of stuff.

Until then, I will sponge up information.

[Jasper]

Nice!

It won't just create a backlash of populism, but also of insularity, won't it?  For some time now people have bemoaned increased reliance on foreign resources, such as oil.  If our trade with china also becomes troublesome, "not invented here" has a chance of becoming more the norm.

[Cain]

I don't know, there are too many invested interests who get rich off foreign oil right now.  And while it's something of a stereotype, many of those interests are close with the Republican Party and Teabaggers (one of the Teabagger's biggest backers is Koch Industries, who are heavily involved in the petroleum industry).

Plus the power of ideology.  Lots of the Teabaggers are "free market" diehards, at least in theory.  I can see the "buy American" thing being more popular in that sort of nationalistic mood, but what is produced in America any more?  That makes a profit, anyway.

[Jasper]

In short, weapons.  We make lots of weapons.

Granted, our AR-15 is downright atavistic compared to the Steyr or the AK-M.

Also, why do you think America has such a war-boner for Iran?  It's kind of a mystery to me.

[Cain]

I'd say mainly for two reasons

a) its a hostile country sitting on top of a vital geostrategic choke point (the Hormuz Straits).  In the event of a possible war with China or Russia or even Iran itself, Iran can basically shut the Straits entirely, and that would probably result in a $300 oil barrel cost.  Especially with the problems in Nigeria right now.

b) Neocons are very invested in Israel, for basically mythic and in some cases tribal reasons.  With Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention it's general religious nuttery, they see it as an ongoing threat to Israel's existence, especially since Iraq was smashed, leaving the entire Middle East either in the US or Iran's sphere of influence.  I just realized that's really two combined reasons, but oh well.  Yeah, Iran is now the most powerful state in the region not allied to the US, and that's potentially pretty powerful given the above.

[Cain]

A possible third reason is that Iran played American intelligence like a fiddle in the run up to the Iraq War, then used the Iraqi insurgency as a lab, to monitor American tactical expertise.  Some in American intelligence feel rather butthurt about that.

Edit: and of course, a fourth reason is that American companies are not welcome in Iran.  By installing a friendly government, American companies, including oil companies, can once again operate there.

[Jasper]

Going with realism, I'm willing to bet the first one is the real reason, while the second and third will be the reasons presented publicly.

[Cain]

In my experience, you usually get a war when a convergence of various interests will all benefit from it.  So with Iraq, the "democratic revolutionaries" got their chance, those who believed Iraq was the bigges thread in the Middle East and should have been taken down earlier were satisfied, human rights activists who wanted Saddam to swing for war crimes were happy, various military-industrial companies and oil companies were happy, and the purely psychotic/those who wanted to use a war abroad to clamp down on dissent at home were happy

[Jasper]

Weird how much sense that makes.  

I will post more questions later.  For now I've got a lot to think about.

[Cain]

No problem.  I should probably be doing stuff anyway.

[Requia ☣]

Granted, our AR-15 is downright atavistic compared to the Steyr or the AK-M.

I had to look this up, and this sentence still doesn't make much sense to me.

[Cain]

You know, I don't understand some of the stuff in the more technical or science threads, but I don't see fit to try and hijack them with a declaration of my lack of knowledge, which I suspect no-one would give two shits about.

[Jasper]

An american assault rifle called AR-15, which is widely used by the military, is far and away an inferior design to other, less "traditional" designs such as a weapon known as the steyr, which (I am informed by a friend who studies this religiously) superior in every way.

Mostly I just mentioned it because I hear about it from that guy so often, and it's something I can add to the discussion.

The entire American gun industry is known to be exceptionally, well, they prefer guns that fit their idea of what a gun should be like, rather than stupid shit like ballistics testing, comparative analysis, effective range, new features, or reliability.

[Kai]

Cain, reading this thread I am so glad you are here rather than selling weapons internationally. Because your precognition here is just creepy, but there it would be downright terrifying.

[Requia ☣]

An american assault rifle called AR-15, which is widely used by the military, is far and away an inferior design to other, less "traditional" designs such as a weapon known as the steyr, which (I am informed by a friend who studies this religiously) superior in every way.

Mostly I just mentioned it because I hear about it from that guy so often, and it's something I can add to the discussion.

The entire American gun industry is known to be exceptionally, well, they prefer guns that fit their idea of what a gun should be like, rather than stupid shit like ballistics testing, comparative analysis, effective range, new features, or reliability.

Ok... the AR-15 isn't used by the military, nor is it an assault rifle, its a semi auto version of the M-16 (which is an assault rifle thats heavily used by the military).  As for inferior.. well, the AR 15 basically survives on its relationship to the M-16, but the M-16 is an effective general purpose weapon.  There are certainly better weapons available, but none so much better that they would justify the cost of buying enough for the entire military, and retraining everyone so they can use the new model effectively.