So when do we invade Iran?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes.... It wouild have been necessary to execute Admiral Kaine, wouldn't it?

Wrong thread, I think.

[atomant]

January 20, 2006: The government is playing hardball with the rest of the world over the issue of their nuclear weapons program. Attempts to impose economic sanctions, or military attack, on Iran would, the government now threatens, result in Iran withholding its oil. Iran is selling about $40 billion worth of oil a year. If Iran's oil were pulled from the market, the cost of oil would probably rise 20-50 percent. Iran believes this would hurt the rest of the world, than it would Iran (which would still have its unshipped oil). The rising price of oil over the last few years has enabled Iran to create a reserve of some $50 billion. Iran also knows that embargos don't work, and a determined government, especially if they have a lot of money, can find ways around it.



The basic situation in Iran is that the Islamic conservative minority (about 20 percent of the population) benefits from a constitution that gives the senior clergy a veto over government actions. The Islamic conservatives control the police and military, and maintain their own separate army of armed men, to protect that control. The majority of Iranians are not willing to fight a civil war to break the Islamic conservative control. That control was obtained during the 1980s, after Iraq invaded Iran (hoping to grab some oil wells while Iran was distracted with overthrowing the monarchy.) In all the chaos of that war, the Islamic conservatives got the new constitution modified to favor themselves. The Islamic conservatives are now using nationalism ("Iran must have nukes!") to help maintain power, and popular support for the nuclear weapons program. But the Iranian clergy also supports world conquest by Islam, the destruction of Israel and the United States, and terrorism in general. Thus they are seen as far more dangerous with nukes. However, the Iranian terrorists are Shia Moslems, a minority that has long fought conservatives of the majority Sunni sect. Al Qaeda is a very conservative (and anti-Shia) Sunni terrorist group. Thus the spread of Iranian based terrorism is limited. The most tangible manifestation of Iranian supported terrorism is Hizbollah, a Lebanese Shia terror group that defends the large Shia minority in Lebanon, and supports the destruction of Israel (whose Moslem population is nearly all Sunni.) Meanwhile, al Qaeda is trying to establish a presence in Lebanon, which would eventually lead to renewed war between Shia and Sunni Lebanese.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


Uh, oh. He's on to us again.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Lonestar


I know. To live in the age of Epaminodas, where Generals tendered their resignation en masse when one of their own was screwed over like that. Imagine the ****storm if the JCS all resigned over that. I bet we either wouldn't be in Iraq, or the war would have gone very differently.

Remember one Marine Gen did retire and then spoke out against the war.

[Barnabas]

Isnt this like fighting against time? a useless fight?

Isnt the bomb like already a 60 years technology?

It is obvious that more and more countries will be able to make the bomb as time passes, in 40 years it will be a century old technology and most likely every developing country will have the ability to nuke their neighbours.

In Latin America both Argentina and Brazil have had the ability to make the bomb since the 70´s, I think South Africa can make it too.

[Silver14]

Re: So when do we invade Iran?

Originally posted by Thorn
Well since even the French are rejecting talks with them... ahahahahaha.... that's a good one (too bad its not a joke)...... When will the grand coalition of allies form and military invasion take place.... Bets anyone?

Iran will never have the ability to build nukes. Even if the rest of the world pursues fruitless talks which Iran defies Israel would take the initiative and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if they felt there was a possible threat. They have arguably the most to lose and they had no problems taking out Iraq's facilities in the early 80s on their own initiative. IIRC they didn't consult any other country includeing the US beforehand in that case.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/sep-oct/vanden.html

[KrazyHorse]

It's almost as though you're completely ignorant of the differences between the Iranian nuclear program and the Iraqi program from the early 80s.

[Silver14]

I am. Aside from the belief that if Iran were trying to build a nuke that Israel wouldn't hesitate to put an end to it. Don't tell me it has something to do with the French. j/k

So what are the differences?

[KrazyHorse]

Israel doesn't even come close to having the capability to end the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes. Even the USAF would only have a long shot at doing so.

[KrazyHorse]

The major differences which lead to this conclusion are the extent of the Iranian nuclear program (far, far greater in technical advancement, capacity and geographic dispersion) coupled with the location of many key facilities underground.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Israel doesn't even come close to having the capability to end the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes. Even the USAF would only have a long shot at doing so.

True, though I seriously doubt that they could do more than hold on while we conducted an air campaign. Those centrifuges use a lot of electricity, and it's pretty easy to destroy electrical infrastructure.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


True, though I seriously doubt that they could do more than hold on while we conducted an air campaign. Those centrifuges use a lot of electricity, and it's pretty easy to destroy electrical infrastructure.

To destroy the electrical infrastructure is to deprive the civilian populace of basic needs. Tha escalates a any attack from "precision" to a full blown campaign that will do massive civilian damage.

That is a significant escalation of attacks, and more likely to play to the Iranian regimes hand, since such an air campaign could not go on indefinitelly, especailly after oil prices jump like mad because of it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Last time I checked Myers went along with Rummy- I did not see any generals standing up for Shinseki.

From what ive heard, its cause Rummy will do in the careers of anyone who publicly opposes him.

And before this continues on fruitlessly, obviously Shinseki was right, and he was canned because his statements undermined some of the basic tenants of the pre-war policy by the Admin. when it came to selling the war- a slow buildup would have undermined the sense of imminent threat they were trying to push, and a large deployment would have made the coming costs of the war obvious politically, robbing the admin. of political support before they went forward with their little experiement.

They didnt have to put in 500,000, if they had put in 250,000 that would have made a big difference in the early stages of the occupation. And they didnt need them all set up in Feb 2003. If they had sent them in in April, or even June, that would have had a huge effect.

Rummy didnt keep the numbers down to make the war palatable, he did it cause he wanted to push the military toward transformation, and cause he didnt believe in nation building.

[Joseph]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap

Last time I checked Myers went along with Rummy- I did not see any generals standing up for Shinseki.

From what ive heard, its cause Rummy will do in the careers of anyone who publicly opposes him.

And before this continues on fruitlessly, obviously Shinseki was right, and he was canned because his statements undermined some of the basic tenants of the pre-war policy by the Admin. when it came to selling the war- a slow buildup would have undermined the sense of imminent threat they were trying to push, and a large deployment would have made the coming costs of the war obvious politically, robbing the admin. of political support before they went forward with their little experiement.

They didnt have to put in 500,000, if they had put in 250,000 that would have made a big difference in the early stages of the occupation. And they didnt need them all set up in Feb 2003. If they had sent them in in April, or even June, that would have had a huge effect.

Rummy didnt keep the numbers down to make the war palatable, he did it cause he wanted to push the military toward transformation, and cause he didnt believe in nation building.

Rummy don't want an Army, he wants a 400,000 Special Ops force with no big weapons, such as a Tanks, Artillery, etc.
He feel if a man cannot carry it, you don't need it.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Joseph
Rummy don't want an Army, he wants a 400,000 Special Ops force with no big weapons, such as a Tanks, Artillery, etc.
He feel if a man cannot carry it, you don't need it.

I was wondering why they went to berets.