Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war" (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war"
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jm, what you described might be a justification for Iran declaring war on the United States and the UK. It does NOT justify seizing an embassy and taking hostages. One would have to be insane to suppose that it's somehow OK to take embassadors and their families hostage if their country fails to win friends.

"For Iran to be antagonizing us right now, or to perpetrate an outright attack of some kind, just makes absolutely no sense."

So let's ignore physical evidence in favor of the assumption that the ayatollatalitarians are only going to do things that would make sense to us?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, war with Iran would be an immense commitment of our country's resources and attention for a long, long time. Look how long we've been piddling around in Iraq and how much that is costing us. Nobody can possibly advocate war with Iran unless they have fixed in their minds that the effort will be short-lived, economically advantageous to us (in the long term) and will have a manageable cost (personnel and equipment resources and $$) to us in the short term. I think it's unfair or even reckless to promote military action without having "cost-justified" the effort along those criteria.

I'm not ignoring the moral or security imperatives that might drive us to do such a thing, but to say that those drivers are manifested sufficiently to ignore the costs is still a tough case to make.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Pete, war with Iran would be an immense commitment of our country's resources and attention for a long, long time.

Yes, it has been a long time, and very expensive as well. Would it have lasted as long had we recognized that we were, in fact, at war?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I parsed that correctly. You mean we should shift tactics from cold to hot war with Iran, I think. So, what happens after we make that shift (cost, duration, outcome)?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I said earlier, I was making no judgment about the hostage crisis, just filling people in on the history behind it that is often left out or ignored. Knowing about the US & UK backing a coup, it frames things and helps explain why they took those hostages and knocks down the misconception that they are irrational religious zealots.

I don't buy into the argument that Iran is bent on stoking the global Islamic jihad against the west, and no one seems to have made that accusation. Their pres has said some pretty inflammatory things towards us and Israel, yet has our pres not done the same?

If anyone does support that angle, then an attack by Iran does make sense, even though they will guarantee getting their asses handed to them militarily and being removed from power and very likely killed.

I don't think they (the leaders of Iran) personally have a death wish, want to start a global war/jihad, or are stupid enough to think they can win in a straight up fight against us.

Based on my opinions and historical facts such as our reaction to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, it would seem quite stupid for Iran to attack the US directly. Particularly the timing now with several carrier battle groups hanging out in their backyard.

Like I said, if/when it happens, lets not get our panties in a bunch and start screaming to nuke Iran within 24 hours. Prudence is in order before we go and get ourselves in another mess in the ME.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
I think it's unfair or even reckless to promote military action without having "cost-justified" the effort along those criteria.

Are you leaving out of your calculations the costs of not acting? Because that was key to my argument to stay out of Iraq.

Would you seriously argue that a nuclear-armed Iran poses less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in June 1940?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
I think I parsed that correctly. You mean we should shift tactics from cold to hot war with Iran, I think.

No. I mean simply that it's naive to talk about whether to war with Iran, when the accurate question is *how* we wish to proceed in this war. I am not fully persuaded that hot war is to our advantage at this point; I'm fairly sure that full invasion is not to our advantage. But I'd prefer to hand power to those that want hot war than to those who are so naive as to pretend that we're not at war. If we're willing to do anything for peace, then we should be requesting Iran to send us terms of surrender.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would have to say yes, a nuclear-armed Iran poses less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in 1943 when the US joined the war.

I also think that the Iran of 2007 who is trying to join the nuclear club is also less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in June 1940.

I'm also pretty comfortable with the claim that even a nuclear-armed Iran poses less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in June 1940.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a different world than before we invaded Iraq (for the second time), even though that was only a short $500B ago. The negative-opportunity cost of not acting against Iran is highly speculative, and there are many other kinds of actions that we could take, either against them or defensively for our own protection.

In my estimation, the most expensive course would be military, but in some ultimate situation that might be necessary.
quote:
Would you seriously argue that a nuclear-armed Iran poses less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in June 1940?
I don't know how to compare them apples and oranges. Rather than force me to answer it, and since you asked it, why don't you supply what you think the answer is.

I really am interested in a serious discussion, rather than trading opinions at ever higher levels of volume (or bold-faced fontness [Smile] ). I am especially interested in discussing the practical aspects. E.g., how real is the threat, how imminent, how expensive to deal with militarily or otherwise, and most important of all, how do you think it will end and what comes after...?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
Would you seriously argue that a nuclear-armed Iran poses less of a threat to the United States than Nazi Germany did in June 1940?
I don't know how to compare them apples and oranges. Rather than force me to answer it, and since you asked it, why don't you supply what you think the answer is.

I really am interested in a serious discussion

You mean a discussion where someone other than makes all the positive assertions and gets stuck with all of the homework? [Big Grin] Don't have time for that right now.
------------------
quote:
As I said earlier, I was making no judgment about the hostage crisis, just filling people in on the history behind it that is often left out or ignored
Your offering those facts as relevant does suggest some sort of judgment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You mean a discussion where someone other than makes all the positive assertions and gets stuck with all of the homework? [Big Grin]
No, Pete. I mean that you toss off very strong assertions and then decline to offer background material to justify them. If you want to have a discussion around an assertion, you also should be willing to explain how you came to your conclusion and what outcome you expect from the action you say is necessary. See, I don't have time to do your homework, either. [Big Grin]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My main fear is that no matter how much you would like to be able to just go in and destroy a few facilities and then get out, any sort of action in Iran, will lead to an all out war.

I just don't see any way to avoid it if we take any sort of military action at all. It might happen anyway, but at least then it wouldn't be our own fault.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave, which fact here is it that you're unclear about:

a) the Iranian government has pledged violent hostility to the USA; b) that the current government has not backed off policies and pledges of Khomeni; c) that Aminadab belongs to a cult that teaches that one can bring about certain prophesies through global war; d) that Iran actively supports a number of very dangerous terrorist organizations; e) that possession of nuclear materials and/or weapons would enable Iran to do more mischief than it can at present; f) that when we went in to WWII, that we didn't have a very specific roadmap or an accurate long-term budget.

Linux: "My main fear is that no matter how much you would like to be able to just go in and destroy a few facilities and then get out, any sort of action in Iran, will lead to an all out war."

Define "all-out war," and identify the last time that the US was involved in such a war. If you mean that once we pound a few nuclear facilities, that you think that will inevitably lead to no holds barred war?

I'd say that the United States has never indulged in an all-out war, except possibly against certain native American nations. Even in WWII we held back somewhat.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Define "all-out war," and identify the last time that the US was involved in such a war. If you mean that once we pound a few nuclear facilities, that you think that will inevitably lead to no holds barred war?

I mean that it will lead to us having to put a lot of boots on the ground in Iran.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not necessarily, LF. War, like anything else, involves a cost equation: if we take X, what will it cost the Iranians to get X back? If we destroy their nuclear reactors, what will it take to get that back? Although, to be clear, if we destroy their reactors, we may also destroy their pride, and some people will pay a high price to get their pride intact.

However, what's more likely to cause an all out "boots on the ground" war with Iran is if the Shia slaughter the Sunni in Iraq, thereby forcing the Saudi's and other to defend their Sunni bretheren. Next thing you know, the entire region is in turmoil and we're forced to take sides.

To be clear: I'm not saying that striking their reactors will not cause a war. I'm saying that such is less likely than allowing Iraq (or Lebanon) to collapse into chaos.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Define "all-out war," and identify the last time that the US was involved in such a war. If you mean that once we pound a few nuclear facilities, that you think that will inevitably lead to no holds barred war?

I mean that it will lead to us having to put a lot of boots on the ground in Iran.
By that definition, we're still at all-out war with Germany. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I guess I'm just being stubborn, because nothing in what you said justifies conducting a war.

a) the Iranian government has pledged violent hostility to the USA -- That was almost 30 years ago. More recently, Bush accused Iran as belonging to an Axis of Evil and in several SoTU speeches has pledged action against them.

b) that the current government has not backed off policies and pledges of Khomeni; -- Neither have they reiterated them for a long time, but the US backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's when Iraq invaded Iran. In 1988, the US military shot down an Iranian passenger jet with 290 people aboard.

c) that Aminadab belongs to a cult that teaches that one can bring about certain prophesies through global war; -- But that doesn't exercise that through their government. Don't forget that Maliki is a senior leader of the Shiite Dawa party, which has been accused of bombing the US embassy in Kuwait in 1984.

d) that Iran actively supports a number of very dangerous terrorist organizations; -- True (most likely), but none of those organizations has acted against the US, so I don't see how that justifies us making a military strike against their country. Islamic terrorism is sponsored by many non-governmental organizations based in a number of countries in the ME, Africa and Asia. Iraq itself has become a training ground for terrorist activities, and we're already occupying that country. I don't see how a military strike against Iran would reduce terrorist activity against other regional or western countries.

e) that possession of nuclear materials and/or weapons would enable Iran to do more mischief than it can at present; -- Conceivably. It's not clear to me how best to deal with this, but since they don't yet have nuclear weapons, it is a stretch to argue that pre-emptive military action, which would destabilize the global political and economic structure, is appropriate. Note that even our staunchest ally in the war against Iraq (Britain) is firmly against any sort of military action in Iran.

f) that when we went in to WWII, that we didn't have a very specific roadmap or an accurate long-term budget. -- Don't know why you included this, as it is relevant only if you're building a legal brief for entering WWII, and has nothing to do with a casus belli for war against Iran.
quote:
Dave, which fact here is it that you're unclear about
Pete, you bury some "facts" inside a weak circumstantial argument. I'm clear about them, but the argument just doesn't reach the threshold needed to start what could turn into WWIII.

The first Iraq war had a legitimate casus belli (though I was against it). The second Iraq war was fought for fabricated reasons, but even if you were for it initially, there had to have been alternative ways to achieve the objectives that would have cost less than $500B (and counting), 25,000-30,000 US casualties, and the massive human and civil devastation of Iraq. Who would have thought that a simple war in Iraq against a weakened dictator would last longer than WWII and cost more than Viet Nam?

Iran is a far more intimidating target in every way that you measure the strength of a military adversary: They have a huge military age population, they fund extranational terrorism and insurgency organizations throughout the ME, they are allied with Russia and India, they are a theocratic republic whose government is driven by an apocalyptic religious orientation and that doesn't work from the same kind of diplomatic principles as western nations.

Honestly, if we do end up going to war against Iran, I don't think it will be for the "legitimate reasons" you or anyone else provides. Instead, increasing tensions will lead to some kind of "Archduke Ferdinand" event similar to what started WWI or a Vincennes style provocation. War will become inevitable if the people of the two countries passively allow their leaders to fail to avoid it. Exacerbating differences in our interests, inflaming past grievances and characterizing each other as "evil" by both sides isn't helping.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Define "all-out war," and identify the last time that the US was involved in such a war. If you mean that once we pound a few nuclear facilities, that you think that will inevitably lead to no holds barred war?

I mean that it will lead to us having to put a lot of boots on the ground in Iran.
By that definition, we're still at all-out war with Germany. [Wink]
Haha, I think you knew what I meant... I just see no way to avoid getting into the same situation we have already maneuvered ourselves into with Iraq, only it will probably be worse, as Iran is bigger and has a large military, and a large segment of its population is fanatical in its hatred of the US/Westernized culture.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to mention that Iran has a lot of territory along the coast of the Persian Gulf. With a few missiles they could destroy some major ports and essentially halt oil exports from the middle east... patriot missiles are always handy, but they are not fool proof, we have been lucky that they've had such a good war record so far because they aren't really *that* accurate.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that the US had any rational justification for entering WWI, Dave, so your archduke example is inapposite. Here, we have a sworn enemy of the United States with an established record of government by the mentally ill, acquiring a weapon more destructive than anything that the Nazis ever had. Now if you have an actual argument against war, then make it now, before it's too late.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't think that the US had any rational justification for entering WWI, Dave, so your archduke example is inapposite. Here, we have a sworn enemy of the United States with an established record of government by the mentally ill, acquiring a weapon more destructive than anything that the Nazis ever had. Now if you have an actual argument against war, then make it now, before it's too late.

Before its too late? Please. Even if they had a nuke, what do you think they're gonna do with it?
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You miss the point, Linux. I don't think that the US and Israel are going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's what I mean by "too late." Anyone who thinks they have a viable argument to *not* attack Iran, had better make it now. Sitting around and saying, "prove to me that this is a legal war" (rather than bothering to look up the definition of aggression oneself) does nothing except set you up to say "I told you so" when people start to die -- which they will, regardless of how we act here.

As for what Iran would do with one nuke, well, our "ally" Pakistan overtly threatened to use its nukes if we went after Bin Laden. If that's what our friends do, what do you think our sworn enemies will do? I think they would obviously use their nuke to hold millions of innocents hostage while ramping up their support of conventional terrorism, since the nuke allows them to act with impunity. Count on a major backslide with Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran openly backing and training suicide bombers against US targets in Iraq, and that's just phase I.

When they get multiple nukes, it starts to get much messier.

[ February 08, 2007, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:
I, for one, would like to know if it is even possible to invade Iran successfully. Our military, lest we forget, is already so stretched that men are being removed from other trouble spots to be brought to Iraq (20,000 of them). The Iranian Air Force is formidable, and even with our new aircraft carriers in the region (as per the President's speech), it seems quite unlikely that we would be able to achieve the type of success with a bombing campaign that we achieved in the 1st Gulf War (i.e., the war was essentially over before the ground campaign began.)
As has been mentioned, Iran could field a very potent ground army, and to contest it we would have to stretch ourself to the bone in Iraq/Korea/everywhere else. Or institute the draft. And I see it as likely that Shia all over Iraq will unleash a massive spate of attacks, partly in retaliation, partly because we will be stretched thin there too.

Also, what do we do in the war, overthrow the government? That's working out great in Iraq. We'd have to institute the draft to provide the new forces needed for the occupation.

The Israelis would most likely help us, so that makes the military issues a little simpler.

But I still do not see how they pose a threat to America. To Israel, possibly. But despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, would he and the Ayatollah really take what would be the certain destruction of most of their country of 70 million people? It's MAD. And while there might be some crazy enough to do that, Ahmadinejad is a politician. He enjoys power. You do not have power when your nation is uninhabitable and dead.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
When they get multiple nukes, it starts to get much messier.

So you think we can just go in, take out the nuclear facilities, wash our hands, and be done?
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martel:
Pete:
I, for one, would like to know if it is even possible to invade Iran successfully.

So would I. I'd also like to know whether it's possible to strike Iran's sites and avert more than a few hundred deaths.

I'd also like to know whether there's anything that we could do other than attacking Iran to ensure that it does not embark on the series of actions that I described above.

If anyone can shed light on any of the above questions, I encourage them to do so, ASAP.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
When they get multiple nukes, it starts to get much messier.

So you think we can just go in, take out the nuclear facilities, wash our hands, and be done?
No. Do you think we can just walk in, make peace talks, toss a few concessions, sing kum ba ya, and be done?

Me neither.

So why don't we toss aside the straw men and hyperboles and stubborn dogmas, and share out ideas on this topic? Personally I'm not sold on the whole strike the facilities idea yet, although sometimes I lean towards it. The other ideas all sound more dangerous, but maybe I've missed a few points. Fill me in.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Israel should bomb Iran's nuke sites, as difficult as that may be, and that they should do so secretly and without our help.
At last resort, we should bomb the nuke sites ourselves.
Under no condition should we invade.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't buy into the argument that Iran is bent on stoking the global Islamic jihad against the west, and no one seems to have made that accusation.
Nobody but Achminijad and the Iranian government. [Frown]

I agree with Martel.

Although we have nukes, too. We don't have to "invade".

And Iran is much bigger threat now (with Nukes) than Germany was in the 30's. Germany couldn't give a suitcase to a nutcase that could be used to destroy a US city.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martel:
Pete:
I, for one, would like to know if it is even possible to invade Iran successfully. Our military, lest we forget, is already so stretched that men are being removed from other trouble spots to be brought to Iraq (20,000 of them). The Iranian Air Force is formidable, and even with our new aircraft carriers in the region (as per the President's speech), it seems quite unlikely that we would be able to achieve the type of success with a bombing campaign that we achieved in the 1st Gulf War (i.e., the war was essentially over before the ground campaign began.)

Why? How hard is it to take out an airfield, or to rebuild/repair one, or hide one from US satelites?


quote:
As has been mentioned, Iran could field a very potent ground army, and to contest it we would have to stretch ourself to the bone in Iraq/Korea/everywhere else.
You seriously think NK would attack SK if we pulled out?


quote:
Or institute the draft.
I see other alternatives for quickly obtaining trained troops to help us fight. Although ultimately more troops will become necessary simply to do the peacekeeping duties in Iraq; we shouldn't have our highly trained specialist forces doing that stuff anyway.


quote:
And I see it as likely that Shia all over Iraq will unleash a massive spate of attacks, partly in retaliation, partly because we will be stretched thin there too.
I don't think so. I think the most Iraqi Shia who want to fight us are already fighting us.

quote:
Also, what do we do in the war, overthrow the government?
NO! Humilliate them. Arm the Iraqi Kurds and Arabs if we have to. If they start disrupting private US interests in the gulf, retaliate by seizing Iranian oil wells on the Iraqi border, where Arabs are a majority anyway, and have troubles with the Iranian government. Start making small reversible noises about giving the Iranian Arabs an "autonomous region."

quote:
That [overthrowing the government]'s working out great in Iraq. We'd have to institute the draft to provide the new forces needed for the occupation.
No occupation except possibly oil fields & to landlock them as a threatening measure to bring them to their knees. Leave the basic government intact; just humilliate Khameini and Aminajab, but do not speak in favor of the opposing parties since that would single them out for persecution.

quote:
The Israelis would most likely help us, so that makes the military issues a little simpler.
No. Israeli participation would be more of a liability, bringing in more Jihadis.

quote:
But I still do not see how they pose a threat to America. To Israel, possibly. But despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, would he and the Ayatollah really take what would be the certain destruction of most of their country of 70 million people? It's MAD. And while there might be some crazy enough to do that, Ahmadinejad is a politician. He enjoys power. You do not have power when your nation is uninhabitable and dead.
Read what Shirer says that Hitler did to Germany during his last 6 weeks of life and then reconsider your definition of power.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I still do not see how they pose a threat to America. To Israel, possibly. But despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, would he and the Ayatollah really take what would be the certain destruction of most of their country of 70 million people? It's MAD. And while there might be some crazy enough to do that, Ahmadinejad is a politician. He enjoys power. You do not have power when your nation is uninhabitable and dead.
As I said; suitcase nukes. Which are untraceable to Iran.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the most Iraqi Shia who want to fight us are already fighting us.
Most of them who want to fight us right now are. However, as strange as this may seem, it is possible for US military actions to cause people to move from the not wanting to fight us catagory into the wanting to fight us catagory. [Wink]


quote:
No occupation except possibly oil fields
You had better believe they'll be torches, not wells, when we get hold of them.

I understand how appealing the notion of limited military force is here, but it's not realisitic. The Arab majority isn't itching for a US occupation. Iran has spent the last two weeks sending us a message about what they can do to rotary wing aircraft. We won't be able to quickly insert troops from the air, and that lack of Air-Mobile infantry will be a serious set back.

The Iranian Air Force is pretty much a joke compared to ours...which is why it will probably be used suicidally and offensively. The vast majority of their long range missles will be used the same way, in one large counter-attack.

Whether they kill 1,000 or 10,000 of our troops in that counter-attack, the people of the US will demand War. Not limited strategic realpolitik moves, but War. They won't be satisfied until American boots are stomping in Tehran.

We can get away with minor border incursions, snatching agents in Iraq, flying drones around in Iran...but a large scale public humiliation will mean war, and it won't be limited.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE?

A suitcase nuke goes off, we're attacking Iran. We won't be asking questions.

Making nukes that small is decades away for Iran.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here, we have a sworn enemy of the United States with an established record of government by the mentally ill, acquiring a weapon more destructive than anything that the Nazis ever had. Now if you have an actual argument against war, then make it now, before it's too late.
Pete, you've got it all backwards. You need a really, really, really good reason to start a war that could turn into a nuclear confrontation, but your arguments for justifying a war against Iran are paper thin, and I have explained why. You've ridiculed my reasons and alternative approaches without explaining what's wrong with them. It's just scaremongering to say "...before it's too late." NK already has declared war against the US and they already have nukes. Pakistan is not really our ally, and they have nukes and have sold them to our enemies. Those threats to world peace are decidedly more real than Iran. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Iran's bellicose threats against the US are old, far older than our President's declarations against them.

If you think that Iran is the serious and inevitable threat you argue for, then how can you possibly say that you're not convinced war is the only option?

You challenged me with a strawman for how entering WWII compares with starting a war with Iran, and then rejected a simple analogy I made to WWI because it isn't relevant. I think you are trying to control the discussion with wordplay.

To the fundamental questions of how much will a military action cost ($$ and lives), how long will it take, and what the aftermath will be you have not provided a single shred of practical response, despite my repeated requests. If you can't do that, your assertions about humiliating them, etc., aren't any better than the planning that was done for the Iraq war.

Iran is not standing still politically right now. Ahmadinejad is under fire for his domestic policy handling, foreign policy handing and for his management of the nuclear question. We and the UN are exerting international economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, and I see some signs that it is paying off with dissatisfaction within the country. I think there is grounds for thinking that ratcheting that up will have beneficial long term effects.
quote:
I think Israel should bomb Iran's nuke sites, as difficult as that may be, and that they should do so secretly and without our help.
At last resort, we should bomb the nuke sites ourselves.
Under no condition should we invade.

Martel, you think you can have one without the other? What will Iran do if we (or our proxy, Israel) bomb them? Nothing?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
quote:
I think the most Iraqi Shia who want to fight us are already fighting us.
Most of them who want to fight us right now are. However, as strange as this may seem, it is possible for US military actions to cause people to move from the not wanting to fight us catagory into the wanting to fight us catagory. [Wink]
Yes. I imagine that if we nuked Mecca or something like that, we'd greatly increase the number of persons displeased with us.

But we're talking about striking Iranian nuke sites here. I'm not seeing this as a huge fighting point with most Iraqis.


quote:
No occupation except possibly oil fields
You had better believe they'll be torches, not wells, when we get hold of them.[/QB][/QUOTE]

How does that affect my argument that the move would bring the country to its knees economically? Iran relies on those resources.

quote:
Iran has spent the last two weeks sending us a message about what they can do to rotary wing aircraft. We won't be able to quickly insert troops from the air, and that lack of Air-Mobile infantry will be a serious set back.
Can you source me on that? Don't know much about that.

quote:
The Iranian Air Force is pretty much a joke compared to ours...which is why it will probably be used suicidally and offensively.
Assuming they can get off the ground at all after our first srikes. I suppose a few planes already in the air could come crashing down in suicide attacks.

quote:
Whether they kill 1,000 or 10,000 of our troops in that counter-attack, the people of the US will demand War. Not limited strategic realpolitik moves, but War. They won't be satisfied until American boots are stomping in Tehran.
Nah. We didn't react that way when Mao massacred thousands of US troops on the China/NK border. Even if they did pull something like that off, we're not going to popular-demand a draft to stomp Tehran

quote:
We can get away with minor border incursions, snatching agents in Iraq, flying drones around in Iran...but a large scale public humiliation will mean war, and it won't be limited.
Again, careful with your terminology. I don't see us descending to total war over this. Question is simply how many limitations will hold.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Pete, you've got it all backwards. You need a really, really, really good reason to start a war that could turn into a nuclear confrontation,

I assure you that I have no personal intention of starting any war. I also have no interest in persuading you to support a war with Iran, since I'm not entirely certain that I support such a war myself.

As for whether it's a legal war, I've shown you the internationally accepted definition of aggression before (Robert Jackson's description at the onset of the Nuremberg Tribunal). If you want to assert that an action is illegal, then that's your job to show it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Five choppers have been shot down in Iraq in the last two weeks, US military and Blackwater.

Pete, it may not be the smashing of Mecca, but you're talking about hitting the worlds only actual Shia'a nation. (Majority of and Governed by)

Plenty of Iraqi Shia'a have family there, they are the source of many of the Iraqi militias funding, there is a lot of cross-border trade and exchange in religious students.

The fall of Iran, the withdrawl of Iran, would mean the loss of power for many of the Shia'a militias. You don't think they would retaliate? It's really not as if they are going "all out" right now.

The Korean war was a very long time ago, Pete, and WWII Veterans weren't all that impressed by those kind of numbers.

Iran relies on oil revenue, but here's a wager I bet they'll make. They can go without that revenue longer than the West can go without their oil.

However, the real question, the one I keep asking over and over and over, is "Do we take them at their word or not".

The Supreme leaders retaliation threats

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You challenged me with a strawman for how entering WWII compares with starting a war with Iran, and then rejected a simple analogy I made to WWI because it isn't relevant. I think you are trying to control the discussion with wordplay.
[Confused] That is one bizarre accusation.

You can't "challenge" someone with a straw man (2 words). And neither a straw man, an analogy, nor relevance has anything to do with "wordplay."

I didn't say your analogy wasn't *relevant*, I said that it was "inaposite," meaning that your analogy did not show what you wanted it to show. In other words, even if a confluence of events leads to a stupid war like WWI, we still have the choice of whether to enter that stupid war.

As for me "trying to control the discussion," muahahaha! You are in my power. [LOL]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I think his words should be taken seriously, and I imagine they take ours seriously, as well. I expressed earlier that my biggest fear is that we will talk ourselves into a war that isn't necessary.

I think the following assumptions all hold, but I'm putting them out there so others can tell me I'm wrong and offer your own.

. We can't just smart bomb them into submission.
. They will shut down the Strait of Hormuz if we attack them.
. They cannot be conquered, because they are a country of 50M+ and we don't have the capacity to manage an occupation while still floundering in Iraq.
. The will strike back with indirect and potent attacks against the US, Israel and western Europe.
. There is no way to stop 100 suitcase bombs out of 100 from going off.
. War against Iran will trigger global consequences that will restructure the political, economic and military maps for generations.
. We have no frigging clue what the outcome of a military adventure against Iran will be.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Five choppers have been shot down in Iraq in the last two weeks, US military and Blackwater.

Sounds like we're already at war, then.

quote:
Pete, it may not be the smashing of Mecca, but you're talking about hitting the worlds only actual Shia'a nation. (Majority of and Governed by)
Iraq is also majority Shi'a and governed by Shi'a.

quote:
Plenty of Iraqi Shia'a have family there, they are the source of many of the Iraqi militias funding, there is a lot of cross-border trade and exchange in religious students.

The fall of Iran, the withdrawl of Iran, would mean the loss of power for many of the Shia'a militias. You don't think they would retaliate? It's really not as if they are going "all out" right now.

Isn't it? Some might ramp up, some might back down, and some might be cut off.

quote:
The Korean war was a very long time ago, Pete, and WWII Veterans weren't all that impressed by those kind of numbers.
But they also thought they had less to lose from a nuclear war. We're gentler. And we've lived decades since the Draft, and definitely don't want it back.

quote:
Iran relies on oil revenue, but here's a wager I bet they'll make. They can go without that revenue longer than the West can go without their oil.
Based on what facts?

quote:
However, the real question, the one I keep asking over and over and over, is "Do we take them at their word or not".
At their word? Certainly not. I'd sooner trust our intelligence than their word, despite our manifest limitations there. Their leaders word is useless.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't say your analogy wasn't *relevant*, I said that it was "inaposite,[sic]" meaning that your analogy did not show what you wanted it to show.
Inapposite:
adj. Not pertinent; unsuitable.
Synonyms: ...irrelevant...

I say tomayto, you say tomahto [Smile]
quote:
muahahaha!
Be careful of that overbite. May we get back to the discussion now?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1