So when do we invade Iran?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by C0ckney
neo, any chance of you backing up your iran nuke claims?

No, because it is not a claim, it is a rumor, hence I used the words "surmise" and "may"

I cannot find where I read this at any more.


Here is where I read it, it was reported in the Turkish press, that CIA director Goss told Ankara they already have them, in trying to get Turkey on board to actions against Iran.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/12/turkey-goss-reportedly-told-ankara.html

This blog, (surprise) is run by an ultra conservative, however, his and my views on the real complexities of the issue of Iran are spot-on. However, while he advocates a more pro-active path, (as do the neocons), I tend to want as isolationist appraoch to Iran, as I do with most international politics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
ok, lots more discussion about an israeli airstrike against Iran and about a US ground invasion of Iran. But as I asked in my (ignored?) post about 15 posts back, what if Bush were to try to repeat the strategy Clinton used in Serbia and attack Iran wholly via a massive air campaign with no effort to occupy any of the country at all?

In that case you aren't going to accomplish anything. You aren't going to topple the current regime as the, um, "smart" bombs start blowing up civilians by the hundreds.

Furthermore, the US used five carrier groups against Iraq. Undoubtedly Iran is much stronger.

[NeOmega]

when we bombed Serbia, we did not have our army entrenched in hostile territory nextdoor.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Joseph
Ge, this is were I can say you are wrong. Many people that serve in the Military or work for the Military may work on or go somewhere that is highly classified. Those people are required to sigh a paper when they leave/retired that they can never tell about what they did.
Case in point. When I worked at my old job, I was not suppose to even admit that I worked there. That means that if you came up to me and asked me if I did work there, I was suppose to say no. If you continual to asked, then I was required to find out as mush info on you that I could and then turn you in to NIS. Then NIS would tell me how to talk to you and what to say while they and the FBI Investigated you.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

This arguement can be made using salient, NON-CLASSIFIED info. Vince has simply said "yeah, I know", and then nothing else. Saying you were in the military means nothing. I have an uncle who made it to Sergeant-Mayor. He was in the MP. I doubt he is an expert in nuclear submarines.

I also work a job in a job where I investigate situations- if I were to take everything people say at face value, well, lets just say, its incredible what documents, videos, and tapes can show in relation to the stories some people can tell.

In short, I am not one to simply accept other's statements of fact unless at the end of the day, they can back them up.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


In that case you aren't going to accomplish anything. You aren't going to topple the current regime as the, um, "smart" bombs start blowing up civilians by the hundreds.

Furthermore, the US used five carrier groups against Iraq. Undoubtedly Iran is much stronger.

I think all bush would want to "accomplish" would be to make it a logistical impossibility for Iran to build nukes. Building nukes isn't nearly as easy as everyone believes. I think building nukes under such a campaign would be like trying to land a man on the moon in the face of several months of consecutive hurricanes hitting your launch pads and aerospace industry.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega
when we bombed Serbia, we did not have our army entrenched in hostile territory nextdoor.

yeah we did. They were peacekeeping in Bosnia at the time.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo
yeah we did. They were peacekeeping in Bosnia at the time.

notice I said "hostile"

I think all bush would want to "accomplish" would be to make it a logistical impossibility for Iran to build nukes.

You think wrong. Bush also wants to keep the support of the nations in Iraq, and wants to keep Iraq from degrading into civil war, or all out war. A bombing campaign on Iran would be a declaration of war, period, and there are 150,000 Americans within the hand of Tehran to lash out at. 150,000, BTW, is not enough.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega


notice I said "hostile"

The people in bosnia were hostile in the same manner as the iraqis. Most were happy to see the old regime gone but many couldn't wait for the occupiers to leave. Especially those Bosnians who had dreamed of a greater serbia and had previously dominated bosnia politically.

Originally posted by NeOmega
You think wrong. Bush also wants to keep the support of the nations in Iraq, and wants to keep Iraq from degrading into civil war, or all out war. A bombing campaign on Iran would be a declaration of war, period, and there are 150,000 Americans within the hand of Tehran to lash out at. 150,000, BTW, is not enough.

*any* military action against Tehran at all would be a declaration of war and this entire thread is about the military options which those trying to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran might be contemplating.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The people in bosnia were hostile in the same manner as the iraqis. Most were happy to see the old regime gone but many couldn't wait for the occupiers to leave. Especially those Bosnians who had dreamed of a greater serbia and had previously dominated bosnia politically.

I knew I should have said this in the initial post, since I knew you would try and throw this out, and see if I would actually buy it, I just gave you more credit than that.



How many Americans were killed in Bosnia again?

*any* military action against Tehran at all would be a declaration of war and this entire thread is about the military options which those trying to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran might be contemplating.

So then, I guess you answered your own question. No a bombing run is not a viable option, the only option when using military force is all-out war.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I knew I should have said this in the initial post, since I knew you would try and throw this out, and see if I would actually buy it, I just gave you more credit than that.



How many Americans were killed in Bosnia again?

Puh-lease. There is no credible opposing military in Iraq. it's low grade guerilla war that generates 2k military casualties over 3 years of occupation and directs it's worst venom against the civillian populace it supposably aims to "liberate".

Originally posted by NeOmega
So then, I guess you answered your own question. No a bombing run is not a viable option, the only option when using military force is all-out war.

bull****. There are no rules in war. There is nothing special about a ground invasion that somehow makes a non viable war viable. It's all about what the objectives are and what cost the aggressor party is willing to pay, and how much return they are willing to settle for. The US finished the war in the pacific without a ground invasion of Japan. This lesson will continue to convince leaders that they can avoid a messy ground war by effective use of air assault.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Puh-lease. There is no credible opposing military in Iraq. it's low grade guerilla war that generates 2k militarry casualties over 3 years of occupation and directs it's worst venom against the civillian populace it supposably aims to "liberate".

Puh-lease. There have been over 9000 fatalities, counting the US backed Iraqi army. Puh-lease, there have been over 15,000 American casualties, Puh-lease, there have been over 2,800 fatalities counting coalition forces and security forces.

But, um... how many Americans were killed in Bosnia again... you forgot to answer that one.

bull****. There are no rules in war.

agreed.

There is nothing special about a ground invasion that somehow makes a non viable war viable. It's all about what the objectives are and what cost the agressor party is willing to pay, and how much return they are willing to settle for.

Ok... um, who are you arguing with, and why did you quote me?

The US finished the war in the pacific without a ground invasion of Japan. This lesson will continue to convince leaders that they can avoid a messy ground war by effective use of air assault.

Are you advocating nuclear weapons be used on Iran. Before you embarass yourself further, may I remind you tens of thousands of American ground forces died securing important airfields and other supply bases?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Puh-lease. There have been over 9000 fatalities, counting the US backed Iraqi army. Puh-lease, there have been over 15,000 American casualties, Puh-lease, there have been over 2,800 fatalities counting coalition forces and security forces.

But, um... how many Americans were killed in Bosnia again... you forgot to answer that one.

The Serbian opposition in bosnia was unquestionably hostile. The number of casualties doesn't reflect belligerience it reflects whether they are actively engaged or not. If there was no hostile serb presence in bosnia an occupation would not have been worth continuing no?

Originally posted by NeOmega
agreed.



Ok... um, who are you arguing with, and why did you quote me?



Are you advocating nuclear weapons be used on Iran. Before you embarass yourself further, may I remind you tens of thousands of American ground forces died securing important airfields and other supply bases?

The primary stated objective isn't regime change. it's disrupting a nuclear program. Use of nukes isn't necessary to pursue this objective. In ww2 the objective *was* regime change so nukes entered the picture. But honestly those two atom bombs were less destructive than an all out air campaign could be.

[NeOmega]

The Serbian opposition in bosnia was unquestionably hostile. The number of casualties doesn't reflect belligerience it reflects whether they are actively engaged or not. If there was no hostile serb presence in bosnia an occupation would not have been worth continuing no?

give it up.

The primary stated objective isn't regime change. it's disrupting a nucelar program. Nukes aren't necessary. In ww2 the objective *was* regime change so nukes entered the picture. But honestly those two atom bombs were less destructive than an all out air campaign could be.

So. A ground war would be unavoidable, because American troops are in reach of Tehran... in HOSTILE territory. And if a bombing run were ran on Shiite Iran, that HOSTILE territory would become even more HOSTILE.

And it is hypocritical to advocate the killing of tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, to stop a country from getting weapons that one day might be used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega


give it up.

look. you originally posted:

Originally posted by NeOmega
when we bombed Serbia, we did not have our army entrenched in hostile territory nextdoor.

I countered that we did in fact have thousands of troops occupying the territory next door after having intervened against the serbs in that territory to end the war there. You then started posting about how we didn't have our army entrenched in hostile territory in bosnia because Americans were being killed in Iraq while the opposition in Bosnia wasn't killing americans. I guess this brings us back to your original point which I now need you to clarify. What exactly about our armed forces being in iraq makes an air campaign against Iran impossible that didn't make an air campaign against Serbia impossible when we had our forces occupying Bosnia?

Originally posted by NeOmega
So. A ground war would be unavoidable, because American troops are in reach of Tehran... in HOSTILE territory. And if a bombing run were ran on Shiite Iran, that HOSTILE territory would become even more HOSTILE.

Exactly, and I have been wondering whether it might be more effective to confront Iranian ground forces in an attempted Iranian invasion of Iraq (which would make it impossible for them to hide) than it would be launch a US ground invasion of Iran. Also keep in mind that in the horrible Iran-Iraq war the shiite Iraqis showed essentially no sign of support for Iran and the sunni minority in Iran likewise demonstrated little to no support for the the Iraqis. It is not at all clear how Iraqis would respond to the air campaign on Iran. In any event the guerrilla campaign would be quite ineffective at interfering in the air campaign.

Originally posted by NeOmega
And it is hypocritical to advocate the killing of tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, to stop a country from getting weapons that one day might be used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands.

It would be if in fact I advocated it. I do need to be more careful about how I word my posts because in fact what I would advocate would be a kind of neo-isolationism on the part of the US with the exception of not leaving defense treaties like NATO, but that's a matter for another thread. For now I'm discussing what military options the US administration might be mulling and I find myself convinced they would go for a massive air campaign long before contemplating a ground invasion of Iran with another occupation to follow it.

I don't see them likely to try a brief air campaign since simply neutralising Iranian air defenses would be an essential prerequisite to air attacks on Iranian nucelar weapons facilities and that neutralization would take a great deal of time while doing nothing whatsoever to directly interfere in the iranian nuclear weapons program.

[Destroyer]

Okay, here is a different question.

If the Iranians developed a nuclear capability, and sold this onto terrorists, who is to say the target would be America?

Islamic Terrorists have enemies in just about every country on the planet.

What would happen if they nuked Denmark? What would the response be? Denmark has no nuclear capability. What would the US resonse be?