President Bush opens options for use of force on Iran!

[Mr. Harley]

Thank God FDR scared the conservatives, so Bush cannot be tempted to start a war for '08.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Personally I see no pretext for the US to use any type of force against Iran.

You aren't imaginative enough

If the White House decides to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities indeed (which should happen only if the European diplomatic attempts are a miserable failure, and if the US can't bribe the Iranians), then the spinmeisters would find an excuse.

If you can trust the Bushies on one thing, it's their ability to create obvious lies that the American public will swallow

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by PLATO
The real danger is not the U.S. hitting Iran. Here is an interesting scenario.

The 4 Day War

Thr first phase would be impossible without US approval, making US an active part of such a scenario from day one:

In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of Israeli warplanes, taking off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran’s main nuclear facility at Bushehr. Israel’s armed forces have released no details, but it is believed the planes flew over parts of Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, refueling in mid-air before reaching their target. Military analysts speculate that the planes must have refueled somewhere over Iraq.

[Pekka]

Problem comes with schedules. I mean, it's pretty known Dubya is 'war president' and excuse me for saying it out loud but not a very good one in it, there's still crap left on the table, thus he can't go in. Even he can't put a spin to it with the help of Fox News and O'Reilly, to make even the most red hearted conservative forget the facts that are:

1) Iraq is not over
2) It still costs a lot of money
3) Afghanistan is not over, though in more stable state
4) But it still costs money
5) Iran will get nukes, thus the only way to make sure it doesn't happen is to pound it to the middle ages
6) That kind of a war is not only costly, but also extremely not-human on Iranians
7).. who are people also, despite some wackos.
8) It would separate US from it's Euro allies more severely than Iraq operation, and UK would be in difficult situation, and forcing this situation is not only bad thinking, it's total disregard of your own allies.
9) No one will ever buy it will be an easy job
10) it has to be done from the air
11) accurate bombs? Sure.
12) accurate intelligence? Ich don't think zo.
13) etc.

You don't approach a war plan with the scenario you want to do. Because that's never the way it goes. You approach a war plan with the multiple scenarios, and have measures for everything possible, and some impossibles too. This would include exit plans etc. You make calculations how much it costs. You don't make estimations like 'less than people die in traffic' to be your casualty estimation.

Or of course, every CS newbie can do that for you. But for far less money.

Let the beatings begin!


ps. get some professionals doing the plans this time, not president, not secretary of defense, but people who do war. Not someone who says will do war. There's a difference.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Pekka
You don't approach a war plan with the scenario you want to do. Because that's never the way it goes.

Except of course your Name is George W. Bush

But I agree, as it isn´t Bush who decides if the money for a war in Iran but people who, I hope, think tha way you described, there won´t be a new war.

[Pekka]

Right, what I mean by that is of course you have preffered scenario, but.. that's not how you would go with it, that woudl be the best case scenario adn that woudl be used to weigh against all the other scenarios, adn from that data you could possibly determine if it could be worth it or not. If we only take the best case and maybe few 'ok cases', then of course it's worth the war, and that way we will have a war every other year.

And even so, it must be calculated analytically, not emotionally. It should be looked at like low risk investing. You do the sure things, and still accept the possibility of failure, and if it's not worth even the low risk, then it's not doable. Except if it HAS to be done, which isn't the case in here.

The schedule is a problem because Bush will be out of the white house in few years. That means, he might not want to risk a possible democrat getting into the office and aborting the effort before it even begins, so that means preparations has to be started right away in some levels. That means money will be wasted, and the plans can be done in too much hurry, which translates into plans that sucks, and plans that wastes money, and more importantly, human lives.

So.. as for this operation? Depends. Let's look at the facts.. let's analyze for a moment.. Forget the emotional side.

Worst case scenario. War happens, there will be no strong coalition and UN is once again undermined. Undoubtelty breeds into the hands of terrorists indirectly. The war starts, it goes OK for a moment, but a bigger media spin has to be done in order to camoflague all the bad intel info that causes lots of houses to be bombed that weren't what they were supposed to be. Lot of people will die in Iran. Terrorists can operate more freely in Iran and they have safe path way from Iraq to Iran and they establish more interconnected networks, opearting more freely in larger lands.

ME in general will be pissed off once again, and most of all, general public isn't going to give their hearts to us never again in decades no matter what is done.

When the alleged nuke places are bombed to crap, then there is an exit and nothing is done to help the normal Iranian citizens. Well Fox News will say it was the best day in Iranian history since there was never so much worthy stuff in there when few boxes of food was dropped, and the earth quake killed more people years ago.

Ending in result where there will be more terrorists, the line between terrorists and anti-west person grows ever smaller, nothing is stable but quite the opposite. Billions of dollars went for the operation. Not everything was destroyed.

Worth it or not?

[Pekka]

Then of course take the best case scenario too. And other scenes too.. adn calculate some odds, comapre to resources, intel info, stuff like that. Basically analyzing it to put it in simple terms.

I'd say, personally, the case isn't strong enough to wage war. At least not yet. It can be, but to me, this isn't enough yet. Not talking about the nukes thing, talking about the war measures. Something else should be done instead.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dis


good point. I don't think they have forgotton us shooting down one of their planes in the 80's.

They already got even with us for that over Lockerbie.

[MOBIUS]

So basically the aggressive hotheads in the US and Israel are going to plunge us into another crazy war...

Thanks guys!

[faded glory]

Iranian Military is in such a poor shape. A cakewalk would be an understatement, Iraqi army but up a pretty well fight in OIF, per wars go since vietnam.

The insurgency factor would be worriesome. As with Iraq.


Furthermore, Linking Democratic Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and then our Pakistani chronies, together in one bloc? We would of occupied 1/3 of the middle east. That would be pretty badass. I mean. Jihadi's and tyrants would only be left in Saudi Arabia and Syria.

On a serouis note. Iran must NOT be allowed to have nukes. Thats that. You cant let a terror-Facisct state within striking distance of the worlds oil supply, have WoMD.

I say lets do it. TV is boring. I want bombs....on Tehran damnit.

That was so badass in 2003. To see those crazy Republican Guard guys getting mowed down in Bagdad trying to charge Tanks with buses loaded down with Oil. LOL and those pink I <3 Fedayeen F-150's. Comeon...LOL

[Solver]

The army of Iraq, before the US invasion, was 300 thousand active troops. The Iranian army has 540 thousand active troops. That is sufficient to say that an invasion of Iran would not be easy, especially given the huge amount of American forces already deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Dis]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Apparently it was an "heroic achievement"...

This thread makes me laugh - you'd think the chickenhawks had learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq...

Could you please stop inventing new enemies and go after the original one, after all 9/11 was perpetrated by Osama and his Saudis and four years later he is still free!

If I were American I would be embarrassed that the most powerful nation in the world has been rendered impotent by one man...

now you are just being silly. You don't think the U.S. is actually going to do anything do you? These are just idle threats. The U.S. has no intention of attacking Iran.

There is the possibility of Israel launching an air attack and destroying those facilities however...

[Sandman]

The thing is, Iran would retaliate after air strikes. A few thousand well-supplied guerillas for Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sandman
The thing is, Iran would retaliate after air strikes. A few thousand well-supplied guerillas for Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps.

small price to pay for ridding them of nuclear power.

they'll get over it.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They already got even with us for that over Lockerbie.

Lockerbie was Libya's work. They even payed damage to the victims families last year, finally. My neighbour became a millionary, but he would rather want his daughter back.