U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[TCO]

I think I was the first poster to be ignored and it was Kitty who ignored me.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Sandman
A military strike against Iran would be a disaster. Oh, it would probably destroy a lot of stuff and not lose many planes. But the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would become far worse. A single set of air strikes would inevitably degenerate into a sustained, expensive air campaign.

so we have a strike or even a series of strikes, which wouldn't result in many (any?) US/UK casualties and would stop or at least severely hamper iran's efforts to go nuclear. the price being a modest financial cost and a slight upsurge in violence in from insurgents in iraq and afghanistan, who lets face it, hardly need much encouragement.

you have a strange definition of 'disaster'.

in any case, a strike on iran is far more likely to come from israel than anyone else IMO.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I think I was the first poster to be ignored and it was Kitty who ignored me.

OTBOT rating
you can ignore this, it's crap

[Sandman]

Originally posted by C0ckney


so we have a strike or even a series of strikes, which wouldn't result in many (any?) US/UK casualties and would stop or at least severely hamper iran's efforts to go nuclear. the price being a modest financial cost and a slight upsurge in violence in from insurgents in iraq and afghanistan, who lets face it, hardly need much encouragement.

you have a strange definition of 'disaster'.

in any case, a strike on iran is far more likely to come from israel than anyone else IMO.

[C0ckney]

exactly what i thought when i read your post, but at least i had the good manners to take it apart.

[Sandman]

Ok, why would the cost be 'modest' and why would the violence be 'slight'? Especially given the demographics of Iraq and the American propensity for military over-spending.

[C0ckney]

modest and expensive are relative terms, especially when you consider what is at stake. we fought a sustained air campaign against serbia not so long ago after all, and a more limited one against iraq before that. air raids would be expensive compared to doing nothing, but (very) modest compared with the cost of the iraq war.

the violence, well no one in iraq or afghanistan is going to be jumping for joy about it (excepting perhaps the kurds), but i'm not convinced it would make a massive difference to the insurgencies. it's not as if the ones already fighting can hate us any more, and are ordinary shias really going to be more concerned with bombing iran than with their third holiest shrine being blown up and daily sectarian attacks?

so, why would stopping iran's nuclear program be a 'disaster'?

[C0ckney]

like i said before though, this is all pretty academic IMO, because if anyone carries out a strike against iran, it will be israel.

[SlowwHand]

No.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
I think I was the first poster to be ignored and it was Kitty who ignored me.

You got that right.

[KrazyHorse]

hey, TEF, edit that ****ing link.

[TCO]

Originally posted by C0ckney
like i said before though, this is all pretty academic IMO, because if anyone carries out a strike against iran, it will be israel.

No. We are the only ones who can pull it off. I think support will need to be built for it, although actions after 06 elections would not surprise me.

I don't know what I want or what the right thing to do is. Taking out the facilities will be a huge bruhaha and Euros and everybody outside of red-state America will hate us even more.

That said, letting things go on...well...I don't for a SECOND buy any talk about the program being for peaceful purposes.

[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.

[KrazyHorse]

I also really have doubts about the effectiveness of airstrikes.

Though if that's going to be the road taken it needs to be done now rather than later.

[KrazyHorse]

If we started crucifying people like Romans, that insurgency would be over in weeks

Horse****.

Insurgencies run by fanatics thrive on brutality.