While Dems Dither on Iraq

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:43 am

It appears that the US is preparing to strike against Iran....at least according to the Rooskies:

\"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,\" the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.\"

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

So the question is, will America be justified in doing so? If a Iran attack happens, how many of you will dash out and sign up with the Cindy Sheehan mob and go picket Bush's Texas ranch? Will Mobi drop a loaf, get intimate with his favorite sheep and then post here about how evil Bush is? So many questions.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:55 pm

I don't think there is any way Bush will attack Iran with the intention of entering their territory so any other kind of attack will just be a strike or series of strikes with some objective other than occupation or even overthrow of the nutbag and his slapnut religious co-leader. So no, there will not be a war with Iran.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:29 pm

woodchip...do you honestly think the US military can sustain another campaign?

Two Choices:

Leave Iraq ---> Screw up in Iran
Stay in Iraq ---> Get slaughtered in Iran

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:53 pm

I have no doubt what-so-ever we could go into Iran and clean their clocks all the while maintaining a prescence in Iraq. The problem I see is how things would emerge after the dust settles. Would the disaffected youth take over and set up a responsible govt.? Or would they join their radical theocratic overlords and go into hit and run mode?

A bigger question is how much would the Iraq insurgents
be affected by the loss of Iran supplied munitions. Would the Kurds in Iran (iirc there are 3 Iranian provences on Iraq's boarder that have a sizable Kurdish population)help out. To what degree would American troops in Iran have in stemming supplies to AQ in Afghanistan?

Then we have to wonder how many western countries might secretly give their blessing to such a attack. I can't help but think, even with limited strikes intended against Iranian nuclear site, how much of the Iranian defensive grid we would have to first take out. At that point what will Irans response be.
Iran has a few submarines that could cause problems against our fleet, and the same is true for their missiles. I don't think the Iranians will sit back and do nothing as the case when the Israelies bombed Saddams nuke sites.

Lets hope all the military build up is simply to try and pressure Iran to desist in their nuclear weapons dream.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:48 pm

Well, we all saw it coming!

Well, I'm fed up with America's \"throw more men at it\" approach. If you're going to attack a country, you're better off to do it right!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:52 pm

You got it all wrong. It's the Japanese philosophy to \"throw more men at it\". In the USA the solution is to \"throw more money at it.\"

It just so happens that the men follow the money.

The USA would be fusking insane to do ANYTHING to Iran.

Iraq (alone) is going to cost you guys TWO TRILLION dollars. That's just stupid. Two Trill' buys a LOT of oil - even if you're buying it from people who don't like you. Money talks - but armies just kill.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:21 pm

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bu ... t_strategy

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:14 pm

What I'd really like is for topics on other countries! All the ones here seem to be either on USA or on the Middle East! (and an odd few on New Zeland, from Mobius)

Mobius wrote:The USA would be fusking insane to do ANYTHING to Iran.

Iraq (alone) is going to cost you guys TWO TRILLION dollars. That's just stupid. Two Trill' buys a LOT of oil - even if you're buying it from people who don't like you. Money talks - but armies just kill.

You're forgetting something.

1: Who's in charge? Stupid people!

2: Who's giving them the money they need for such wars? Stupid people!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:33 pm

So I suppose it is stupid if you see a known pedo heading towards a kid on a playground to go and stop him before he gets to his target.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:48 pm

dissent wrote:http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bu ... t_strategy

The original: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/11/e ... egy_f.html

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:18 am

woodchip wrote:So I suppose it is stupid if you see a known pedo heading towards a kid on a playground to go and stop him before he gets to his target.

Wait, how is this relevant?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:32 pm

Zuruck wrote:woodchip...do you honestly think the US military can sustain another campaign?

Two Choices:

Leave Iraq ---> Screw up in Iran
Stay in Iraq ---> Get slaughtered in Iran

It depends what 'the campaign' is:

I believe that the U.S. could, with relative ease, invade Iran and tople their government. Look at Iraq, the war against Sadamn's army was a huge successs.

The U.S. has no problem with winning wars, what we fail at is sustaining the peace afterwards.

If our purpose is to end the Iranian government and go home, then that could be done in a few months.

I think the Iranians know that.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:59 am

Gooberman wrote:It depends what 'the campaign' is:

I believe that the U.S. could, with relative ease, invade Iran and tople their government. Look at Iraq, the war against Sadamn's army was a huge successs.

The U.S. has no problem with winning wars, what we fail at is sustaining the peace afterwards.

If our purpose is to end the Iranian government and go home, then that could be done in a few months.

I think the Iranians know that.

But look at the "war against terrorism" in Iraq campaign. That was a terrible flop! They lost more Americans in the war than in the 9/11 attack!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:36 am

One of the problems was prior to General Petreaus taking charge, both commanding generals were administrative officers. Petreaus is a combat officer. The recent decline in american casualty's may be reflective of viewing the administration of Iraq as a combat situation instead of a pacification scenario. Some news reporters are even wondering if this \"new\" style approach, if in place at the end of the active combat stage, wouldn't have prevented the whole terrorist/insurgency conflict from gaining a foot hold.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:03 pm

While Gen. Petreaus may be talented in that field, I don't know what continued combat intends to accomplish, woodchip. We appear to be dealing with an enemy that exists in an infinite quantity. You can kill them all you want - there are hundreds more to take their place completely unfazed. Our enemy is essentially a hydra. Until we can destroy the root of this problem, it will never end. And what's that root? Prevailing hopelessness. Unemployment. Violence in the streets. An unstable and sluggish government. In Republican speaking terms, a failure to win the \"hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.\"

How do guns solve that problem?

The al-Maliki government needs clearly defined goals and benchmarks to meet. And, if they already have them, we need to make them more aggressive. They are dragging their feet at the expense of our soldiers and we need to make it absolutely clear that it is not acceptable. Our commitment cannot be viewed as indefinite or else the al-Maliki government has no incentive or pressure to move forward.

While Dems Dither on Iraq

While Dems Dither on Iraq

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: