Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that while Iran poses a genuine "danger" to the United States, the U.S. military is now too weak to respond.

Asked whether the U.S. might have to resort to military action against Iran, Dean told CBS's "Face the Nation" that President Bush had "squandered our resources in Iraq, which was not a danger to the United States."

Story Continues Below


"He doesn't have much left to fight a country [like Iran] that is a danger to the United States," the top Democrat insisted.

While agreeing that "no option should be taken off the table," Dean said Bush "lacks the credibility both here and abroad to actually exercise [a military] option" against Iran.

"He shouldn't say it, because it can't be delivered upon," Dean declared.


DRUDGE





I am SO GLAD he is a Democrat.....hehe


ed. to add link
www.newsmax.com...

[edit on 16-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Dean is right in part if the US military cant maintain sercuity in Iraq I doubt that the US militaryhas the resouces to occupy Iran. So far the war on terror has stalled for the lack of a better term however it is great we have finaly seen the end of limted wars.
No more conflicts in the mould of Korea or Gulf War 1.


Of course a draft may solve any manpower shortages........

[edit on 15-8-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Dean is far too conservative and a way too supportive of war for me to like, but here's to hoping Bush proves Dean wrong and attacks yet another country just because Dean said this.

I'm sure you'd just love that Ed.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Frith]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I am SO GLAD he is a Democrat.....hehe p:


Dean is exactly right.

How exactly can we invade Iran?
What do we invade with?
How to occupy Iran afterwards?
How do we battle an insurgency on two seperate fronts?

Inquiring minds want to know, Ed.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

Originally posted by edsinger
I am SO GLAD he is a Democrat.....hehe p:


Dean is exactly right.

How exactly can we invade Iran?
What do we invade with?
How to occupy Iran afterwards?
How do we battle an insurgency on two seperate fronts?

Inquiring minds want to know, Ed.



We don't need to invade, why would we want to?

See above ^

Uh See Above ^

And yet again see above ^


WE DONT NEED TO INVADE IRAN, we just need to give those that want the Mullahs out a little help.....thats all.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
We don't need to invade, why would we want to?

WE DONT NEED TO INVADE IRAN, we just need to give those that want the Mullahs out a little help.....thats all.


Ed, once again, stop deflecting the issue.

Howard Dean said that we can't invade Iran, because we don't have the resources. You made a post lambasting Howard Dean for making the arguement.

Please explain to me how and why Howard Dean is wrong.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
Howard Dean said that we can't invade Iran, because we don't have the resources. You made a post lambasting Howard Dean for making the arguement.

Please explain to me how and why Howard Dean is wrong.




Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that while Iran poses a genuine "danger" to the United States, the U.S. military is now too weak to respond.

Asked whether the U.S. might have to resort to military action against Iran, Dean told CBS's "Face the Nation" that President Bush had "squandered our resources in Iraq, which was not a danger to the United States."

"He doesn't have much left to fight a country [like Iran] that is a danger to the United States," the top Democrat insisted.

While agreeing that "no option should be taken off the table," Dean said Bush "lacks the credibility both here and abroad to actually exercise [a military] option" against Iran.

"He shouldn't say it, because it can't be delivered upon," Dean declared.


hmmm

Do I see the word INVADE?


Nope, didn't think so.

He is an idiot if he thinks we don't have the military power to hit Iran, we can and quite easily I might add, plus we don't need to invade......


once again no invasion necessary,


no ground troops other than those to hold the Iraqi lines and Iran cant do squat about it....


No invasion needed,



nope no need to have ground troops HOLD Iran,



why?


Yup , no invasion needed...



Get it now?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Yup , no invasion needed...
Get it now?


No. Dead correctly stated that we don't have the resources to FIGHT Iran.

You framed this particular arguement by lambasting Howard Dean for having the above stated opinion. Because you framed the arguement, it is your responsibility to back it up.

Why is Howard Dean incorrect?

YOU brought it up.
YOU disagreed with him.
YOU tell me why.

EDIT: Are Military is stretched too thin. We've spent half a trillion dollars fighting a war on two fronts. How do we expand that to a third front?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by brimstone735]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
The US isnt too WEAK to hit Iran. Hold it..yes. But I think that if we were to attack iran it wouldnt be a liberation. So we wouldnt be trying to make the citizens like us. If there was someone attacking wed level the city.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

Ed, once again, stop deflecting the issue.

Howard Dean said that we can't invade Iran, because we don't have the resources. You made a post lambasting Howard Dean for making the arguement.

Please explain to me how and why Howard Dean is wrong.



Wait a sec, did you NOT say this?


We can hit Iran and damn hard too IF we saw the need. RIght now we are playing the diplomatic pussyfoot game with the UN and the EU as they will not have the balls to play hardball, period. We all know it, just some will not admitt it.


With 3 carrier battlegroups in the Indian Ocean/ Red Sea, the Iranian Air Force and Navy would last 3 days, maybe 4.

The troops that cross the Iraqi border will be slaughtered unlike anything they experienced with Saddam including the WMD he never had nor used.


Iran would be a very hard invasion but you miss the point. That is not the plan, nor the need.





Originally posted by brimstone735

EDIT: Are Military is stretched too thin. We've spent half a trillion dollars fighting a war on two fronts. How do we expand that to a third front?



What the heck is this gobbly goop? 500 Billion? Huh?

No closer to 200 Billion and its the same FRONT, its just Global.


[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   



He is an idiot if he thinks we don't have the military power to hit Iran, we can and quite easily I might add, plus we don't need to invade......


once again no invasion necessary,


no ground troops other than those to hold the Iraqi lines and Iran cant do squat about it....


No invasion needed,



nope no need to have ground troops HOLD Iran,







You cant win a war with Airpower alone WW2 and to a lesser extend Korea proved this. Ed your political views have made you blind to facts.
Fighting a land war without ground troops.

Whats next fighting a war at sea without the USN?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
You cant win a war with Airpower alone WW2 and to a lesser extend Korea proved this. Ed your political views have made you blind to facts.
Fighting a land war without ground troops.

Whats next fighting a war at sea without the USN?


Just where have you been?

Ever heard of Bosnia?

And again the KEY word here is INVADE. We dont need to.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
link
Theres a google search on Bosnia.
Are you still trying to tell me there were no ground troops in Bosnia?

If the CIA failed to overthrow Saddam how are they going to overthrow Irans leaders?
If the government of Iran is overthrown wont ground troops be needed to occupy the country and prevent a power vacume?



[edit on 16-8-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 16-8-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 16-8-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
(1) Dayton was brought upon by AIR POWER.

Case closed.


To take ground you need troops - we dont need the Iranian ground.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Air power dosnt win a war by itself .Instead air power is the key to winning a war. Even if air power forces a political settlement the same people would still be in power in Iran.
What would we be left with?
Another long term failuare to add to the list.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Uh there is an old joke from WWII on the air war thingy, it goes something like this.

"An English General, an American General, and a Russian General meet with a German and Italian General in a bar after the war in Europe was over. Drinking and talking one of the Generals asked. "WHo won the air war?" The rest all shrugged.

You can't win by air alone. Unless you count dropping nukes as winning the war by air. Which it isn't, it is winning by killing all of your enemy so no one is left to fight back.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Why is it always the most vocal war supporters who have no concept of military strategy?

Your insane!

Okay we drop some bombs on Iran and then what?
They magically decide that America is actually their friend?
What kind of fantasy world are you living in edsinger?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Why is it always the most vocal war supporters who have no concept of military strategy?

Your insane!

Okay we drop some bombs on Iran and then what?
They magically decide that America is actually their friend?
What kind of fantasy world are you living in edsinger?



Not one at all, but we can make life for Iran a misery very qucily WITHOUT taking it by force (again we dont need it)!


"concept of military strategy?" Well think of that old bastard Mc Arther and how he approched heaily armed Islands....

If you are so damn bright explain to me how the big bad Iranians can resist? Can they gain air superiority? Naval? can they march their M-60's against M-1's. The only thing they can do is cut off some of the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. Dean said we couldn't and he was talking out of his ass in saying so.


Don't tell me about strategy, your sit on you hands and DO NOTHING has been proven time and time again down through history as NOT WORKING. So put on your Chamberlain shirt and go hug a tree!



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Ed you have finally put your point across !
Iran isnt an Island but I understand what your getting at now. Macarthur would skip the heavy defended Islands and would take the lightly defended ones .
However supplies could still be smuggled overland in other words the naval blockade of Iran only dose apart of the job.
So if things go well the US forces force a political settle with the government of Iran hardly a long term soulation.
Within 10 years America will be facing the same problem Gulf war 1 and 2 are proof of this.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
AH true!

But the Ace in the hole is that the Mullah's Iron grip will be broken. There are many Iranians that WANT the US to invade for that very reason.

Look at how they have been hammering down the democracy movement in that last 2-3 years, the people can SMELL it! Freedom....





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join