or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 7

post #241 of 309
I just finished listening to Terri Gross interviewing Steve LeVine, author of The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea. Boy, do we have a whole new kettle of fish...

Quote:
This is a blueprint for how Big Oil is likely to be increasingly treated around the world. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of the world's oil and natural gas is controlled by countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia, not Exxon, Shell or BP. And, over the next two or so decades, those countries are going to turn the big oil companies into employees.

Putin warns against more Iran sanctions

Quote:
"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action?" Putin asked. "Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation."

Wheee!
post #242 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Of course they will. They have too much invested in Iran.

Think that through. You mean to tell me that the Russians are going to engage us militarily? Are you kidding me? It would be WWIII. If they attack us, NATO Article 5 gets invoked and the world ends. They might complain a lot and give Iran a shitload of weapons, but they won't directly engage us. No way.

Quote:

Oh, don't be silly. We didn't think they were too fanatical when we accepted their help to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, did we?

This is just one of those moments where you disconnect yourself from reality in order to make a ancillary point. Iran is run by an oppressive, theocratic regime with fanatical elements. And you're saying it's the same as having MAD with the Russians? No.

Quote:

Funny how selective we are with these nations when it comes to "friend" or "foe", isn't it. Iraq friend. Iraq enemy. Iran friend. Iran enemy.

They only seem to become "enemies" when they don't capitulate 100% to our demands.

Ah, the broken record of The Big Bad Bully USA line. It's so tiresome. We're "demanding" with Iran because they sponsor terrorism, defy the UN openly, won't open their nuclear program, threaten Israel and are exceptionally hostile.
Oh, and have I mentioned the mentality of their leadership? Here's a little light reading for you. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #243 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ah, the broken record of The Big Bad Bully USA line. It's so tiresome. We're "demanding" with Iran because they sponsor terrorism, defy the UN openly, won't open their nuclear program, threaten Israel and are exceptionally hostile.
Oh, and have I mentioned the mentality of their leadership? Here's a little light reading for you. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2

Good points in that link, I'm not going to dispute these findings (as you would the ACLU) that Iran has acted aggressively. As far as acted upon them, I'd need more evidence. But Russia has changed everything. It is a stand off now. Can't wait for Bush's response...
post #244 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Good points in that link, I'm not going to dispute these findings (as you would the ACLU) that Iran has acted aggressively. As far as acted upon them, I'd need more evidence. But Russia has changed everything. It is a stand off now. Can't wait for Bush's response...

Thanks for that reply, but let's not compare my source with ACLU. The CFR describes itself as non-partisan.

I still disagree about Russia. I know they made this super secret double probation pact or whatever, but I cannot imagine Russia engaging the United States. Seriously...I don;'t mean to keep pounding here...but you really think they would do that? Imagine the timeline:

Monday: US attacks with massive air assault and 6,000 targets. The US fires 1,000 tomahawk missiles from 3 carrier battle groups, bunker buster bombs, etc. We target nuke facilities, communications, command and control and duel use facilities. We decide against targeting infrastructure such as bridges.

Tuesday: US assault continues. In 48 hours Iran has lost 80% of its military, its nuclear program, and 100,000 troops.

Wednesday: Russia makes good on its promise and launches a massive counter-attack. Russia launches waves of advanced fighter aircraft and missiles, attacking US positions in the Gulf, in Iran and Iraq. One US carrier is badly damaged and 3 destroyers are lost. We lose 5,000 US troops.

Thursday: WWIII begins. US, British, German and French carriers and subs strike Russian forces in Iran and on deployed Russian naval and air assets. Russia loses 7 submarines, their lone functional carrier, several naval vessels, and 200-300 combat aircraft. The US and NATO demand Russian withdrawal and Iranian surrender.

Friday: Putin, realizing he has overestimated his abilities and feeling desperate, launches tactical nuclear weapons in theater at US troops in Iran and Iraq, and counter-attacks with his remaining conventional air and naval forces. 50,000 US troops die, a carrier and two subs sink, and we lose another destroyer.

Friday, 7 minutes later: The US responds with tactical nukes of its own and destroys several hundred more Russian aircraft, multiple submarines, and hundreds more aircraft. NATO attacks Russian air and naval bases in Russia proper. Neither Russia nor Iran have many military assets left other than conventional ground forces/artillery.

Saturday: NATO demands Russian surrender. If Russia uses further nukes, NATO will respond will full scale ICBM assault. Iran and Iraq are already in ruins, now it's up to Putin.

Sunday: Putin decides NATO is serious and withdraws. Russia lies in ruins as most of its military has been destroyed. Iraq and Iran are uninhabitable. The US/NATO have lost 100,000 troops, 3 carriers, several destroyers, a few subs, 3 B-2s, 250 combat aircraft.


So no...I don't see it happening. Putin has to know the risk of escalation. The most I could see is him supplying weapons.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #245 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Problem is, it won't be MAD, because the Iranian side is not rational due to their fanatical beliefs.

Both sides have their fanatical beliefs. Ths Islamists want to establish a Caliphate, and a return to the 13th century.. and the Judaeo-Christian fundies are promoting policies to bring about the "end times" that the prophets they revere predicted. Ouch.

Quote:
The Russians wanted to avoid war as much as we did during the Cold War.

For sure; and they also couldn't afford to keep up the arms race momentum. They were broke from the 1970s onward. They even refused to intervene in Afghanistan on 3 separate occasions when the failing socialist government in Kabul requested military help in order to quell the Islamist warlords. On the 4th occasion the Soviets responded, and we all know what happened.

Quote:
The Iranians might just pull the trigger to satisfy the aforementioned desires of Mr. Tom & Co. Or, they may have no trouble passing off such a nuke to Al-Queda or another terrorist group.

Now that is plain ridiculous... where do you pick up stuff like that? (Ann Coulter? Bill O'?) Thats a parallel to Saddam Hussein being liable to "passing nukes to terrorists" (if he had had them, which obviously ot the case). Saddam, for starters hated the Islamists.. he called OBL and his ilk a bunch of crackpots (OBL in turn hated Saddam Hussein and called him a godless infidel). Saddam Hussein's ego was far too great to allow the Islamists any power base in Iraq... and Ahmadinejad (another egomaniac hooked on power) would never lose face by allowing the real loose cannons within the Islamic world a foothold, let alone getting hold of a nuke. He might have uttered some controversial and unsavory statements.., but he's not that stupid.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #246 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Both sides have their fanatical beliefs. Ths Islamists want to establish a Caliphate, and a return to the 13th century.. and the Judaeo-Christian fundies are promoting policies to bring about the "end times" that the prophets they revere predicted. Ouch.

Iranians are Shi''tes. They don't accept the Caliphate.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Wahabis who are US allies, work together with the US against Iran and are kept in power by the US in Saudi and Pakistan?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #247 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?

I support the United States right to self-defence First.

So do I. If Iran attacks US positions or those of our allies, we should retaliate appropriately.

Has Iran attacked yet? Let us know when they do, mkaythnks.
post #248 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, I understand, don't get me wrong. But wishing for your nation to be "humbled" (i.e. "defeated") is over the top in my opinion, and yes, I think it's unpatriotic. I don't doubt what you say...that you wish this for good reasons. But one can't route against his own country in a war. He just can't. Again,I understand lobbying against a war, trying to end it, believing it's not in our interests, not being conducted properly, etc. That's different in my view. But hoping we lose in some way? Hoping the other side does a good job defending itself? That's routing for the death of American soldiers, then only blaming the person that sent them there.

Wait, so if the US bombs Iran and Iran retaliates to the point that the US stops bombing, then the US has been "defeated"?

There's a difference between losing a battle and losing a war. There's a difference between losing a war, even, and being defeated. We lost Vietnam, but we're still here, right? In the end I'd say we won in Vietnam. But not through war. Through progress. That's exactly the way we should win in the Middle East.

I'm of the honest belief that if we attack Iran and get burned in the process, hopefully learning the lesson we honestly should have learned with Vietnam, then our grandchildren's lives will benefit, as more peaceful progress in the area will present itself.
post #249 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So do I. If Iran attacks US positions or those of our allies, we should retaliate appropriately.

Has Iran attacked yet? Let us know when they do, mkaythnks.

It's not that simple though is it?

One cannot really believe a word the current US administration says, they are certainly capable of claiming such an attack has happened and you have a lapdog media that will support them to spread the propaganda.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #250 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's not that simple though is it?

One cannot really believe a word the current US administration says, they are certainly capable of claiming such an attack has happened and you have a lapdog media that will support them to spread the propaganda.

Of course.

Also, there's the question about "appropriate" retaliation. Obviously if a breakaway faction of Iranian "cowboys" jumps over the border and attacks an American contingency in Iraq, we can't claim that justifies an invasion.

If we ask Iran to give up nuclear power because we're ascared they gonna make a bomb, and they say "we're not making a bomb and we'll show you, but we won't give up nuclear power; it's not fair of you to make such a demand" then it's not reason enough to bomb their reactor.

But I bet something like that is what's going to happen.
post #251 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course.

Also, there's the question about "appropriate" retaliation. Obviously if a breakaway faction of Iranian "cowboys" jumps over the border and attacks an American contingency in Iraq, we can't claim that justifies an invasion.

If we ask Iran to give up nuclear power because we're ascared they gonna make a bomb, and they say "we're not making a bomb and we'll show you, but we won't give up nuclear power; it's not fair of you to make such a demand" then it's not reason enough to bomb their reactor.

But I bet something like that is what's going to happen.

Yes, no doubt. A lot of the 'breakaway cowboys' seem to be on the US payroll anyway so it's just a matter of time.

I think a good position to take is one where patriotism and nationalism are subordinate to a trans-national principle of non-aggression.

Ie, the 'civilized nations' are ones who are not launching unprovoked attacks on other States and - by definition - Rogue States are those that do and all questions of 'rights' of retaliation are secondary to this.

Essentially something like the founding ethos of the UN and League of Nations before they actually started approving and justifying acts of aggression against whole peoples and ignoring (encouraging?) members who flagrantly and continually broke the rules.

Of course this will never happen because the US as it stands at the moment would then be a Rogue State and have to suffer some form of consequence for its aggression.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #252 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Monday: US attacks with massive air assault and 6,000 targets. The US fires 1,000 tomahawk missiles from 3 carrier battle groups, bunker buster bombs, etc. We target nuke facilities, communications, command and control and duel use facilities. We decide against targeting infrastructure such as bridges.

Tuesday: US assault continues. In 48 hours Iran has lost 80% of its military, its nuclear program, and 100,000 troops.

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Are you familiar with how long the Serbs were bombed and with what results?
post #253 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Are you familiar with how long the Serbs were bombed and with what results?

I guess we didn't need to ask about Iran's self-defense. This searing and penetrating analysis is obviously from the 'cakewalk and strewn roses' think-tank and assumes Iran will just sit back and let the US do whatever they like.

It's verging on the insane now.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #254 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

TThis is just one of those moments where you disconnect yourself from reality in order to make a ancillary point. Iran is run by an oppressive, theocratic regime with fanatical elements. And you're saying it's the same as having MAD with the Russians? No.

And what I still don't understand is why you, and folks who think like you, NEVER seem to make the connection that these "oppressive and theocratic" asses running Iran took power BECAUSE of our invasion in Iraq. Before Iraq there were some pretty level-headed, reasonable Reformists in charge of Iran (supported primarily by women and the youth). Shit, they even helped us out with the Taliban!

They even sent us some pretty reasonable negotiations on how the U.S. and Iran could build on its relationship together. But Washington was drunk with power after the initial bombing of Iraq and pretty much said, "fuck you."

And then Ahmadinejad and the hard liners took over power.

And here we are.

Cause and effect.

Seems pretty simple to me.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #255 of 309
What's really amazing to me is we're doing nothing but talking about IRAN, IRAN, IRAN!

Shit. Pakistan is falling apart right in front of us and NO ONE's paying any attention. And they have nukes. Real ones. One's that go boom. Not "nuclear information" that we're so fucking worried about Iran hypothetically getting.

Why are we so damn backwards as a nation sometimes? Where are our honest critical political thinkers in this country? Where and when did we come off the rails?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #256 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Where and when did we come off the rails?

Fifteen years ago. Washington DC. January.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #257 of 309
[QUOTE=sammi jo;1163195]Both sides have their fanatical beliefs. Ths Islamists want to establish a Caliphate, and a return to the 13th century.. and the Judaeo-Christian fundies are promoting policies to bring about the "end times" that the prophets they revere predicted. Ouch.

Huh? How are "Judeo-Christian fundies" doing that?

Quote:

For sure; and they also couldn't afford to keep up the arms race momentum. They were broke from the 1970s onward. They even refused to intervene in Afghanistan on 3 separate occasions when the failing socialist government in Kabul requested military help in order to quell the Islamist warlords. On the 4th occasion the Soviets responded, and we all know what happened.

OK. Good points.

Quote:

Now that is plain ridiculous... where do you pick up stuff like that? (Ann Coulter? Bill O'?) Thats a parallel to Saddam Hussein being liable to "passing nukes to terrorists" (if he had had them, which obviously ot the case). Saddam, for starters hated the Islamists.. he called OBL and his ilk a bunch of crackpots (OBL in turn hated Saddam Hussein and called him a godless infidel). Saddam Hussein's ego was far too great to allow the Islamists any power base in Iraq... and Ahmadinejad (another egomaniac hooked on power) would never lose face by allowing the real loose cannons within the Islamic world a foothold, let alone getting hold of a nuke. He might have uttered some controversial and unsavory statements.., but he's not that stupid.

Oh come on. First, we're not talking about Saddam. Secondly, why is it unreasonable? We have a state sponsor of terrorism that is deeply anti-semitic and anti-US. Is it really that far fetched that they would engage in a bit of "the enemy of the enemy is my friend?...or at least, worth of giving a nuke to?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wait, so if the US bombs Iran and Iran retaliates to the point that the US stops bombing, then the US has been "defeated"?

I don't know where you got that from.

Quote:

There's a difference between losing a battle and losing a war. There's a difference between losing a war, even, and being defeated. We lost Vietnam, but we're still here, right? In the end I'd say we won in Vietnam. But not through war. Through progress. That's exactly the way we should win in the Middle East.

Oh, excellent. Let's allow Iran to take over and spread it's oppressive government. Let's evacuate our embassy in Baghdad with helicopters, right before the Iranian Revolutionary Guard gets there. Let's leave the region and have 1,000,000 people die. Yes, leaving like we did in Vietnam would be awesome.

Quote:

I'm of the honest belief that if we attack Iran and get burned in the process, hopefully learning the lesson we honestly should have learned with Vietnam, then our grandchildren's lives will benefit, as more peaceful progress in the area will present itself.

What lesson will that be? That we should leave this kinds of fanatics alone? That a man's government can threaten our allies, sponsor terror, kill our soldiers, repress his population and publicly call for our destruction...and we should do nothing? Another excellent idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Are you familiar with how long the Serbs were bombed and with what results?

Surely you are not comparing the two. It would take us a matter of days to destroy Iran's military and it's infrastructure. We're not talking about forcing a political objective through military force. We're talking about ending a nuclear program and taking out military assets to prevent retaliation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I guess we didn't need to ask about Iran's self-defense. This searing and penetrating analysis is obviously from the 'cakewalk and strewn roses' think-tank and assumes Iran will just sit back and let the US do whatever they like.

It's verging on the insane now.

Who says that? I am very concerned about attacking. My above analysis does not include Iran doing things I hope it isn't capable of. Such as? Activating sleeper cells around the globe. Getting off a few lucky shots with anti-ship missiles. Using non-conventional weapons we don't think they have. Any number of things could go wrong, which is one reason if we go in we need to do more than just hit the nuke sites.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #258 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And what I still don't understand is why you, and folks who think like you, NEVER seem to make the connection that these "oppressive and theocratic" asses running Iran took power BECAUSE of our invasion in Iraq. Before Iraq there were some pretty level-headed, reasonable Reformists in charge of Iran (supported primarily by women and the youth). Shit, they even helped us out with the Taliban!

They even sent us some pretty reasonable negotiations on how the U.S. and Iran could build on its relationship together. But Washington was drunk with power after the initial bombing of Iraq and pretty much said, "fuck you."

And then Ahmadinejad and the hard liners took over power.

And here we are.

Cause and effect.

Seems pretty simple to me.

That's delusional and totally unsupported. In fact, you just saw two events an literally made up a connection.

Also, the real power in Iran is with the mullahs anyway. That has been that way long before our invasion of Iraq. Moreover, it amazes me that people actually stick to this line of reasoning in general. Not all anti-American sentiment comes from our actions in the ME. We could pull all our troops out and they'd still hate us (thse that do now), because we are The Great Satan and our position in the world impedes the Islamification of the world.

The problem is we are not dealing with rational, secular policies created by those with whom we merely disagree. We're dealing with religion-derived policies and ideals, some of which are more extreme than others. There are those whose religion tells them that we are infidels, and we must be destroyed because we are non-believers. Then national and group policy gets developed based on those ideals. So it's not just about our actions, Northgate. It's about their beleifs.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #259 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So it's not just about our actions, Northgate. It's about their beleifs.

That would make it not completely the fault of the US, and well...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #260 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

That would make it not completely the fault of the US, and well...

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #261 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Surely you are not comparing the two.

Yep. Serb armor and troops survived nearly intact through a 78-day long NATO bombing. Whereas in your opinion...
Quote:
It would take us a matter of days to destroy Iran's military and it's infrastructure. We're not talking about forcing a political objective through military force. We're talking about ending a nuclear program and taking out military assets to prevent retaliation.

Ending a nuclear program, sure. Taking out 80% of military assets and 100,000 troops in two days from the air? Even if there was a full-scale ground force coming in from every direction to flush the enemy out so that they can be bombed, those numbers are pure fantasy. If Iran has any kind of capability to retaliate in the first place, they can retain it far into the conflict.

Anything close to applicable knowledge in military operational research is not public, but just reading up on the Kosovo conflict would give you a much better idea of what can actually be done.
post #262 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Yep. Serb armor and troops survived nearly intact through a 78-day long NATO bombing. Whereas in your opinion...Ending a nuclear program, sure. Taking out 80% of military assets and 100,000 troops in two days from the air? Even if there was a full-scale ground force coming in from every direction to flush the enemy out so that they can be bombed, those numbers are pure fantasy. If Iran has any kind of capability to retaliate in the first place, they can retain it far into the conflict.

Anything close to applicable knowledge in military operational research is not public, but just reading up on the Kosovo conflict would give you a much better idea of what can actually be done.

I'm sorry, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Our air power is overwhelming. And Serb "armor and troops" did not "survive" anything. The political objective took that long to accomplish. It was also a much different tactical situation. We were going for troop positions, not the military-industrial complex.

In Iran, we'd be targeting the following, if we're smart:

1. Nuclear Facilities
2. Air combat and anti-aircraft resources (air stations, anti-aircraft missiles,etc)
3. Dual use facilities/manufacturing
4. Anti-ship resources
5. Conventional forces/encampments
6. Command and Control/communications
7. Anti-ship resources/missiles


Now, perhaps I went over the top with the 100,000 figure. I'll give you that. That's probably considerably out of line now that I think about it. But the figure about 80% of their military resources is likely not that far off. Consider for a moment that in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we launched 750 cruise missiles in a matter of days. We flew something like 2,000 sorties per day according to the records I can find. We used 1,800 aircraft. We had 3,000 hard targets. And that was the scaled back version. Originally we planned for 6,000 targets.

Consider what that means. The above represented about 50-60% of our capacity to attack, probably less. We used five carrier battle groups and assorted other vessels. One would assume we'd use up to six for Iran and probably have at least 6,000-8.000 targets, as Iran's military is stronger and larger than Iraq's was. One could also assume we'd launch at least 1,000 cruise missiles.

Now, I'm not posting that to jerk off to the sound of "Tomahawk," but merely to make the point that just the United States alone can wreak havoc on a county's military. It simply wouldn't take that long to take our their capability. Is 48 hours reasonable? Again, that might be a little quick, I'll grant you that. The main point of my scenario, after all, was to demonstrate what might happen wrt escalation if Russia gets involved and attacks directly. So how long would it take? One can only guess, but if it took more than a week, I'd be extremely surprised. That would represent at least 14,000 sorties, maybe more if international forces are included. We know that the UK, France and Germany are not pleased with Iran, after all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #263 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thanks for that reply, but let's not compare my source with ACLU. The CFR describes itself as non-partisan.

I still disagree about Russia. I know they made this super secret double probation pact or whatever, but I cannot imagine Russia engaging the United States. Seriously...I don;'t mean to keep pounding here...but you really think they would do that? Imagine the timeline:

Monday: US attacks with massive air assault and 6,000 targets. The US fires 1,000 tomahawk missiles from 3 carrier battle groups, bunker buster bombs, etc. We target nuke facilities, communications, command and control and duel use facilities. We decide against targeting infrastructure such as bridges.

Tuesday: US assault continues. In 48 hours Iran has lost 80% of its military, its nuclear program, and 100,000 troops.

Wednesday: Russia makes good on its promise and launches a massive counter-attack. Russia launches waves of advanced fighter aircraft and missiles, attacking US positions in the Gulf, in Iran and Iraq. One US carrier is badly damaged and 3 destroyers are lost. We lose 5,000 US troops.

Thursday: WWIII begins. US, British, German and French carriers and subs strike Russian forces in Iran and on deployed Russian naval and air assets. Russia loses 7 submarines, their lone functional carrier, several naval vessels, and 200-300 combat aircraft. The US and NATO demand Russian withdrawal and Iranian surrender.

Friday: Putin, realizing he has overestimated his abilities and feeling desperate, launches tactical nuclear weapons in theater at US troops in Iran and Iraq, and counter-attacks with his remaining conventional air and naval forces. 50,000 US troops die, a carrier and two subs sink, and we lose another destroyer.

Friday, 7 minutes later: The US responds with tactical nukes of its own and destroys several hundred more Russian aircraft, multiple submarines, and hundreds more aircraft. NATO attacks Russian air and naval bases in Russia proper. Neither Russia nor Iran have many military assets left other than conventional ground forces/artillery.

Saturday: NATO demands Russian surrender. If Russia uses further nukes, NATO will respond will full scale ICBM assault. Iran and Iraq are already in ruins, now it's up to Putin.

Sunday: Putin decides NATO is serious and withdraws. Russia lies in ruins as most of its military has been destroyed. Iraq and Iran are uninhabitable. The US/NATO have lost 100,000 troops, 3 carriers, several destroyers, a few subs, 3 B-2s, 250 combat aircraft.


So no...I don't see it happening. Putin has to know the risk of escalation. The most I could see is him supplying weapons.

Monday : We have to deal with China!

You see it would be viewed as a very definite bid to control the oil in the reagion for the next oh 100 years let's say. I really think the other countries of the world can see that coming and I don't think they'll look on it very kindly.

So what pray tell do you propose we do? Tell them to shut up or we'll nuke ya?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #264 of 309
Really. I try and try not to be a war nerd on speculative war games. It's fun and all but when it comes to reality, it never seems to pan out. All I know is that this administration needs a lot of evidence and support and money to act on Iran militarily. And it doesn't look like it will happen in 14 months. Unless something like a "terrorist attack" (i e false flag) shifts the issue.

After watching Frontline's report on Iran. It is inevidable. Now with Russia and China now in the wings, I'm seriously concerned.
post #265 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I have no doubt that the attack on Iran is now inevitable, planned and decided upon. We will have to wait for a month or two of sheep-prepping but I firmly believe it is now inevitable.

And so do many in the Intelligence Community.



Given that an insane and blood-crazed bunch of maniacs are planning yet again to conduct an unprovoked attack - this time using nuclear weapons - on a sovereign state, I was wondering what the Americans on the board actually feel would be an appropriate stance for themselves and for Iran to react with?

I am not interested in hearing from the Stepford-drones who have been panting for this ever since the orgasm of Iraq wore off (you know who you are), I am just wondering what the general opinion would be now it appears to becoming a reality.

In a connected note, I think the French will be in for a shock. They opposed Iraq - and rightly so - and at least had some integrity. with the advent of Sarkozy it seems that they too have been co-opted into the New Order.

France is now being used as the UK was as a mouthpiece (useful idiot?) in the drumbeat lead-up to the slaughter: France warning of war with Iran.

Of course part of that deal would be to put troops on the ground - the US will need some cannon fodder - so I wonder how chirpy they'll be when they start dying over there?

As for me, I think we should get on with it. The Bush cabals are sick psychopaths and unless they are stopped they will only cause more death and destruction. I honestly now view it the same as stopping Hitler; a cause worth dying for to make a safer world.

There is a Middle East proverb that says, 'he accused me of having his illness, then walked away.'

You are exemplifying that proverb by casting Iran in the role of an innocent.

If they were really innocent they would not say what they say and do what they do to threaten the peace of the Middle East. By continuing to develop a nuclear weapons capability they will force the West to make a "damned if you do & damned if you don't" decision such as we faced before invading Iraq.

If we do attack Iran there will be those who use that as a pretense to assail us as 'insane and bloodthirsty,' such as your post demonstrates.

But if we don't attack Iran they will point their missiles at Israel and Israel will be forced to either gamble that Ahmadinejad was lying about eliminating Israel or the Israelis will have to attack first to avoid elimination and in so doing be seen by the entire Muslim world as attacking Iran even though Iran had not attacked first.

And let's be clear. If Iran and Israel begin a war the whole world will be dragged into it.

Our efforts to stop Iran's development of an atomic weapon is the only thing that will prevent a World War...that is unless Iran gives up their quest to develop nuclear weapons.

The USA is committed to preventing greater violence and bloodshed.

Iran is committed to expand Islam beyond it's present borders and establishing themselves as the rulers of mankind.
post #266 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

If they were really innocent they would not say what they say and do what they do to threaten the peace of the Middle East. By continuing to develop a nuclear weapons capability they will force the West to make a "damned if you do & damned if you don't" decision such as we faced before invading Iraq.

And yet, the irony seems lost on you.

By the way, the UN is wondering where the evidence is.

You remember the UN? Those feckless pussies who kept saying Iraq didn't have WMDs?

It's like living in a country where the discourse is driven by angry, stupid children with short term memory loss.

It's also startling to see how quickly we have normalized the notion that it is perfectly just and appropriate to lay to waste any country we think might be planning to cause trouble at some unspecified point in the future. An international principle, I might note, that would fully justify Iran attacking us now.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #267 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

If they were really innocent they would not say what they say and do what they do to threaten the peace of the Middle East.

I would really hope the evidence is stronger than just posture.

Not optimistic with this crowd.
post #268 of 309
Meanwhile...

PAKISTAN - Where the Jihad Lives Now

Quote:
Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do. (Unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, there also aren't thousands of American troops hunting down would-be terrorists.) Then there's the country's large and growing nuclear program. "If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard," says Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council.

The conventional story about Pakistan has been that it is an unstable nuclear power, with distant tribal areas in terrorist hands. What is new, and more frightening, is the extent to which Taliban and Qaeda elements have now turned much of the country, including some cities, into a base that gives jihadists more room to maneuver, both in Pakistan and beyond.

Our blind loyalty to this bat-shit crazy country has to stop. Iran are pussies next to Pakistan.
post #269 of 309
Remember when Khadaffi was the big bad? Where is Libya now? Sedated, and cooperative. Where's Cuba? Attack anyone lately?

That's the strategy we should have taken with Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

The only reason we didn't go to war against Libya was because they didn't have enough resources for us to think it worth the effort to steal.

When we lay off... like Libya, progress can be made.

When we attack, like Iraq, clusterfuck ensues.
post #270 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's delusional and totally unsupported. In fact, you just saw two events an literally made up a connection.

You really weren't paying attention when all this was happening, were you? Do you deny that Khamenei was pro-US? Do you deny that right after the invasion of the US, he lost his influence? You'd have to be unbelievably dense (or intellectually dishonest) NOT to see that connection...
post #271 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Wait, so if the US bombs Iran and Iran retaliates to the point that the US stops bombing, then the US has been "defeated"?"

I don't know where you got that from.

Then I don't know where you got your assertion that I wanted the US to be "defeated".
post #272 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That a man's government can threaten our allies

Who did that? Not Iran.
Quote:
...sponsor terror, kill our soldiers...

Who did that? Not Iran.
Quote:
...repress his population...

Now you're just blatantly lying with an assertion that has never ever been made.
Quote:
...and publicly call for our destruction...

Really? Oh... I must have missed that one.

Rovian tool. Keep drinking that Kool-aid (Now enhanced with Fear-K!)

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.
post #273 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Iranians are Shi''tes. They don't accept the Caliphate.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Wahabis who are US allies, work together with the US against Iran and are kept in power by the US in Saudi and Pakistan?

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Ayatollah Khomeini

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm...10882&page=all

This article says it all. Iran has been at war with the US for years. We just haven't been fighting back.

Quote:
In early April, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a pep rally...He has openly boasted...Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani—a man considered "moderate" by the standards of the Iranian regime—boasted...Muqtada al-Sadr, has publicly pledged...Ahmadinejad met...Iran has been cultivating...

Seriously and perhaps more to the point is this.

Quote:
Iran's global ambitions are as grandiose as anything put forward by Osama bin Laden—but they are backed by control of a country of 70 million people with an army, navy, and air force, a vast network of terrorist organizations across the Middle East, and, very soon, nuclear weapons.

If America's failure to act against the comparatively minor threat from Bin Laden in the 1990s resulted in the horrors of September 11, we can expect far worse if we fail to act against Iran.

A war with Iran must begin with the destruction of its nuclear facilities, but it must not end there. Iran is likely to respond to any American attack by escalating, inciting an uprising in Southern Iraq, unleashing a wave of terrorist attacks, launching missiles against US targets in the Middle East, attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. And even if we neutralize all of these threats, Iran's theocrats will not drop their global ambitions. They will merely wait for our attention to wander and attempt to strike us again. The goal of a war against Iran must be to topple the Iranian regime—and to support the rise of a new government formed by the secularist dissidents who now languish in Iran's prisons.

The wars we have fought so far, against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq—were necessary, but they left the largest, most dangerous Islamist regime untouched. The Iranians know it. Sensing American weakness, they are moving against us on all fronts—and any further delay in pushing them back will only make the task more difficult. We have to act—and we have to act now.

There can be no victory in the War on Terrorism until we confront—and defeat—the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the real war, and it's time we started fighting it.

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/...le.php?id=1084
post #274 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Remember when Khadaffi was the big bad? Where is Libya now? Sedated, and cooperative. Where's Cuba? Attack anyone lately?

That's the strategy we should have taken with Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

The only reason we didn't go to war against Libya was because they didn't have enough resources for us to think it worth the effort to steal.

When we lay off... like Libya, progress can be made.

When we attack, like Iraq, clusterfuck ensues.

Uh, hello? Did you not notice that 1) We attacked Libya and 2) After the Iraq invasion, he decided his nuke program wasn't such a good idea?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You really weren't paying attention when all this was happening, were you? Do you deny that Khamenei was pro-US? Do you deny that right after the invasion of the US, he lost his influence? You'd have to be unbelievably dense (or intellectually dishonest) NOT to see that connection...

So let me get this straight: He lost power, therefore it is because of our invasion. That's it right there, correct? You're speculating...that's all. Conditions in Iran had every bit as much to do with it. Their economy is flagging and oil revenue is declining. It's not uncommon for someone with a sort of authoritarian/new nationalist point of view to be looked at as an alternative in that case. You can't just blame it on us. That's absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who did that? Not Iran.Who did that? Not Iran.Now you're just blatantly lying with an assertion that has never ever been made.Really? Oh... I must have missed that one.

Rovian tool. Keep drinking that Kool-aid (Now enhanced with Fear-K!)

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.

I meant oppressed. Sorry.

But Iran has not threatened our allies in the region? Iran has not called for our destruction? Where have you been living?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #275 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Where have you been living?

In the real world I guess....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #276 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who did that? Not Iran.Who did that? Not Iran.

Iranians are building IEDs in Iraq. Get a grip.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #277 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Iranians are building IEDs in Iraq. Get a grip.

Er get a link. I could find nothing supporting that claim.
post #278 of 309
So you think everyone at the Pentagon is lying about Quds? To appease a president at 24% approval ratings?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #279 of 309
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Jubelum;1165158]So you think everyone at the Pentagon is lying about Quds?/QUOTE]

Or maybe it's just everyone at your keyboard...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #280 of 309
Look away all, nothing to see here. Iran is not building IEDs. They're not killing US troops. They're not sponsoring terrorism. They're not making threatening statements towards Israel. They're not extremely hostile towards the US. They're not holding Death To America™ rallies in the streets. They're not ignoring the UN and certainly not publicly announcing their intent to disobey resolutions as soon as they are passed. It's all been concocted by the Evil Bush Administration™ and the Neocons®. Iran can do no wrong. If we would just leave them alone, we could go to bed and it would all turn out OK in the morning. See, Ahmadinejad was mistranslated and misunderstood. So are the mullahs. They're just nice old men with Santa Claus-like beards, wisely and perhaps a bit naively overseeing their Islamic Paradise on Earth. And if there is the occasional seemingly provocative statement, well that's our fault because the CIA Overthrew Their Government 50 Years Ago™ and we've been asking for it ever since. Every time we bend over to tie our shoes we piss them off, from Beruit to Libya to the Gulf War to invading Iraq, but mostly invading Iraq. Man, that really cause ALL the problems because we offended to many people and they voted that nutjob..er..I mean..."conservative" into power in Iran. But don't worry, he's really OK like I said. He's got those nifty looking sport jackets after all, and he says there are no gays in his country. What a kook! But he's harmless. Anyway, see it's all about Oil Oil Oil, and if we weren't sucking up all the resources on the planet and causing Global Warming®, we wouldn't need that. And no, we can't use nuclear power either, or drill the GoM, or ANWR, because once again we'd be interfering with nature and the migratory patterns of the caribou, not to mention that one species of fish I can't recall but tastes great. Problem is, my girlfriend is a Vegan so I can't eat that stuff anymore. Fortunately she's moving to Seattle next week and I can have some freedom. Damn, I hope no one finds out I like Big Macs® because they are delicious.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?