U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[MRT144]

Originally posted by TCO
Oh...and diplomacy is for pussies. The more we show force and willingness to use it, the more effective the diplomacy is. Look at Iraq. If we started crucifying people like Romans, that insurgency would be over in weeks. But I can't really advocate brutality. But reality is that force is what affects things.

seems like saddam was doing a damn fine job of stopping the insurgency before we removed him. we removed a plug to sink full of ****.

[Drake Tungsten]

But NYE's claim that this is some inherent feature of the American military psyche violates the last 60 years of historical facts...

Yeah, I don't get it either...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're off on one of your flights of fancy here, NYE.

The Yanks can and do wage limited wars.

The Yanks can and do level countries by use of air power alone.

What makes you think Bush has a lot of patience for an Iran which he is presumed to have already seen fit to bomb?

And one which is supposed to be supporting the insurgency in Iraq?

[Ramo]

The last thing Iran's doing is supporting the insurgency. They may be supporting paramilitaries allied with the gov't (that we're supporting), though.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Eh. I won't completely discount the possibility that Bush is such a nincompoop/wants so badly to bomb the **** out of Iran that he launches a strike against Iran's nuke facilities and that at the first sign of life from them he loses his cool/takes the opportunity to ratchet up the bombing from tactical to strategic.

But NYE's claim that this is some inherent feature of the American military psyche violates the last 60 years of historical facts...

Really?

What was Kennedy willing to do over the mere possibility of missiles in Cuba?

What did Nixon do when the NVA were using Cambodia?

What did Bush I do when Saddam decided to annex Kuwait?

What did a dove like Clinton do when NATO asked him to?

Blowing the hell out of random countries is not part of the American military psyche. Blowing the hell out of anyone that shoots at Americans or their friends is.

[Drake Tungsten]

Blowing the hell out of anyone that shoots at Americans or their friends is.

What if America is the one shooting at its friends?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo
The last thing Iran's doing is supporting the insurgency. They may be supporting paramilitaries allied with the gov't (that we're supporting), though.

We're supposing Iran is already so far down the **** list that bombing their facilities is already approved of.

Any shooting back they do is gravy. It justifies continued working over of Iranian military and nuclear capabilities.

Two birds, one stone. They shoot back, the USAF gets to put them back to the age of the Mongols.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What if America is the one shooting at its friends?

You've done that. We're still in Afghanistan.

[Drake Tungsten]

You guys never could take a hint...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now, if the US is secretly looking for an excuse to go to all-out war with Iran then that's one thing. But if they were truly interested in a limited engagement with the aim of knocking off as much nuke capability as possible then they would have to know in advance that the Iranians would not sit still and take it, and would be prepared to retaliate without breaking some unspoken limits.

Why do you assume that Bush would want to take them on at all without eliminating them as a regional power (capable of funding fundies across the Arab world) for a decade or more to come?

It wouldn't just be the nukes he was playing for.

You think the cost of gas would effect him?

[notyoueither]

The whole thing's transparent, or it should be.

The US is in Iraq not because of Saddam, but because of the countries Iraq borders.

Iran is being obstinant about civilian nuclear power. Perfect pretext for bombing. The more fight they put up, the better. One less oil rich country shipping out petrodollars to support terrorism.

Who's next? Syria? KSA?

The US is not leaving Iraq for a very long time to come. Get used to it. It's too useful, too central as a base.

The one thing Bush has said that is honest is that this is all about the terrorists. Lots of shell games other than that, but that is what this is all about. It's about turning off the tap of petrodollars to fund bombs in Tel Aviv, Beruit, London, and New York.

[notyoueither]

dp

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Airstrikes would be foolish. Airstrikes using tactical nukes would be astoundingly idiotic.

The diffusion of their nuclear program makes a long-term knockout through a bombing campaign unlikely. The only real chance of destroying the program permanently would be ground forces combing through potential nuclear sites followed by the installation of a pliant gov't, and that's impractical for any number of reasons. As for the political fallout of using a bunker-busting nuke on Nantaz, the upheaval in the Islamic world would be inconceivable - in Iraq alone.

According to Hersh's sources (and others), their thinking is that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” And that's patently absurd, since even Iranian Reformists generally agree with persuing Iran's nuclear ambitions (given the fact that nearby unfriendly states Pakistan and Israel have nukes). Of all the possible issues that they'd rebel against, nukes are the least likely of them; rather, such a bombing campaign would easily strengthen Khamenei's (who is the real center of power, rather than Ahmadinejad) grasp.

To add to this, many of the Iranian youth actually felt the US conducting regime change against their fundamentalist masters would be a beneficial situation.

But then they have seen what has happened over the past 3 years in Iraq and realize now that it's not such a good idea.

This is the same group of morons that assessed the Iraqis would greet us with flowers in the streets. Expecting the rest of the population to rise up is silly, if anything they will all band together to hate us all.

Any strike on Iran is a terrible idea doomed to cause even more long term damage, for the next 50 years.

This is ****ing retarded.

Our own population will be in the streets if this happens, I can guarandamntee you that.

[Patroklos]

By your strange measurement 911 would be one of the cleanest attacks in the history of mankind.

Odd, since the whole point of 911 was to KILL CIVILIANS, and for two of the three attacks they killed nothing but civilians and destroyed nothing but non military targets ON PURPOSE. Unless you want to call the trade towers collateral, what was their intended target?

bull**** (at least on any actual ground war). There might be an empty threat, but a single missile will not goad the US into invading Iran.

I agree with KH on this, but your assumption that Iran would be a "stretch" from an airstike point of view is ridiculous. I am not sure where this idea that because the military is actively employed at doing something we are somehow "stretched." Most of America's airframes were not even employed during the massive initail bombings of Iraqi and Afghanistan.

As far as expanded airstrikes it is a fact that any retaliating forces will be hit. That is just common sense. However, don't think that as the bombers headed for the nuke sites are on their way in most of the areas capable of retaliating, ie the SAM sites defending the nuke facilities, will not already be smoking craters. I bet a few coastal batteries in the Straits of Hormuz would get it too.

I do not see a general bombardment starting unless there is a general attack against the fleet in the Gulf, which is the "missile attack" that would happen as a missile attack against US bases in Iraq is stupid. Their land missiles are no better than Iraqi Scuds, just area bombarment missiles used for attacking cities, not small bases or field deployed units.

Plus the Iraqis, even if they are as enamored with the Iranians as some of you say, probobly won't like that so much. It is not like Iran is going to kick us out of there in any scenario, so basically Iraq absorbs damage for nothing.

[MRT144]

i not so secretly hope bush does bomb iran so then i can laugh uncontrollably at how bat**** crazy he is.