U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Slaughtergaard


If you invade Brazil, we KILL you. And it's going to be harder than Iran.

That went right over your head, didn't it skippy?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
General Jack Ripper is alive and well and posting on Apolyton.

I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[Agathon]

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?

Their aim was to get you to invade Afghanistan, and it worked. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the backing there that they thought they had, and the gambit failed.

Then you went and gave them a second chance by invading Iraq. Osama Bin Laden must dance a happy little jig every morning before breakfast.

[Patroklos]

So the aim was to kill civilians. Those brave martyrs fighting the oppressors.

Killing Civilians

[Barnabas]

Why not just assasinate Ahmie?

Its cheaper than invading.

[Lazerus]

Step forward nutcase number 2 who is now even more of a nutcase because you've just murdered the previous.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Why not just assasinate Ahmie?

Its cheaper than invading.

Since Ahmie is simply a mouthpiece (albeit a dreanged nutter one) for the real rulers, the mullahs, that doesn't seem to help the situation much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Common dude, I am not known for my reluctance to advocate military action or minimizing the effects of military power, but this is ridiculous.

And LeMay's basic concept is correct, it is the same thing the current 6 retired generals are critisizing Rumsfeld over; not using the Principle of Mass or Violence of Action.

Agreed... especially against using nukes, which is utterly moronic for a country that believes in (or at least speaks about) human rights. How exactly does massacring millions of civilians comport with that? I wonder if bloodlust is more important than American values. Makes us no better than the 9/11 attackers, IMO.

[SlowwHand]

That would have more truth to it if all the civilians of 9/11 were grouped in with military personnel; unlike the Mideast which insists on doing things that invite civilian deaths.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That would have more truth to it if all the civilians of 9/11 were grouped in with military personnel; unlike the Mideast which insists on doing things that invite civilian deaths.

Makes no difference. Hell, nuking an entire country off the map, frankly, makes us worse than the 9/11 bombers.

[Patroklos]

Agreed... especially against using nukes, which is utterly moronic for a country that believes in (or at least speaks about) human rights. How exactly does massacring millions of civilians comport with that? I wonder if bloodlust is more important than American values. Makes us no better than the 9/11 attackers, IMO.

I am not sure if that was a rebuttal against the LeMay quote or not? But if it is...

The decision to go to war, especially in modern times were destruction is not limited to battlefields and front lines, means you have already made the judgment that civilian casualties in some number are a necessary evil for the cause you are going to war for.

In that case, it is the duty of military and civilian leaders alike to pursue the course of action that leads to the least destruction/misery. It is not like we are prosecuting wars of extermination here, we don't want the complete destruction of the other side. Realistically, politicians during the time of Korea and Vietnam should have appreciated that short term destruction in both cases would have led to far more beneficial results on all accounts in the long term. Rather they judged that looking humane was more important that being humane (alert to the squeamish; Machiavelli-ism*).

And to this effect I think smart bombs and such might have a more destructive effect than many nastier forms or warfare. Right now we can restrict the scale of destruction and pain a population suffers in a nationwide bombardment to almost nothing relative. The effect of only fighting the military and not the populace is that the military is the only thing defeated, the populace is not demoralized, exhausted, or scared ****less. Hence insurgencies.

Again it is a balance. Our personal sensitivities make us rightfully repulsed by the idea of increasing the scale of destruction when it is possible to be "clean" about it, but thinking macro, large scale, is what is needed in wars involving tens to hundreds of millions of people.

What he actually said…

Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Since Ahmie is simply a mouthpiece (albeit a dreanged nutter one) for the real rulers, the mullahs, that doesn't seem to help the situation much.

I'm not sure about that. Remember that he beat the Mullah candidate for presidency. His government is the one made with most laymen since the Islamic revolution. Ahmie is much more extreme than most Mullahs (the Mullahs are the new political/business caste, and they have way too much to lose if the regime falls).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm not sure about that. Remember that he beat the Mullah candidate for presidency. His government is the one made with most laymen since the Islamic revolution. Ahmie is much more extreme than most Mullahs (the Mullahs are the new political/business caste, and they have way too much to lose if the regime falls).

Even were I to grant that as a possibility, eliminating him would not in anyway make the remaining mullah caste hold a more favorable disposition to the US or Israel. Much the opposite IMO as martyring comes into play.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Even were I to grant that as a possibility, eliminating him would not in anyway make the remaining mullah caste hold a more favorable disposition to the US or Israel. Much the opposite IMO as martyring comes into play.

Indeed. I don't think eliminating him has any use.

Intimidating the Mullahs, however, can be very useful. They could be prompted to take back the power they're letting slide (for the sake of democratization, which is an actual concern among urban Iranians). Kind of what Pakistan's ruler is doing with his own crazies.

[Patroklos]

I miss the Spiffor Lego dudes