Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I said regime change - no army required, it might need some assistance along the way.

What part of that is so hard?

The assistance required would be an eventual insertion of US troops nothing short of that would guarantee stability. Unless of course you'd rather leave it to the UN....

I think the hard part should be glaringly obvious.




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman

Originally posted by edsinger
I said regime change - no army required, it might need some assistance along the way.

What part of that is so hard?

The assistance required would be an eventual insertion of US troops nothing short of that would guarantee stability. Unless of course you'd rather leave it to the UN....

I think the hard part should be glaringly obvious.



Like the UN would even....nevermind.


I say again, troops would not be needed, I feel the country would implode if the trigger was right. There are many Iranians HOPING the US invades.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

I say again, troops would not be needed, I feel the country would implode if the trigger was right. There are many Iranians HOPING the US invades.


Ed if your eyes were as blind as you are to your political beliefs , you wouldnt be able to see 30cm in front of you.

The Iranians have been brainwashed into hating the US.
The Neocons said the same thing about Iraq isnt it about time you cam back to reality?

Even if Iran implodes you dont know what the end result will be.
You cant win a war without a solid plan. You cant have any ifs or unknowns.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by boogyman

Originally posted by edsinger
I said regime change - no army required, it might need some assistance along the way.

What part of that is so hard?

The assistance required would be an eventual insertion of US troops nothing short of that would guarantee stability. Unless of course you'd rather leave it to the UN....

I think the hard part should be glaringly obvious.



Like the UN would even....nevermind.


I say again, troops would not be needed, I feel the country would implode if the trigger was right. There are many Iranians HOPING the US invades.


Many?

A majority?

A super-majority?

How do you know?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
this is starting to sound like the current "plan" in Iraq - we never really thought past the "bomb 'em back to the stone age" part.

all "blow it to bits" and no "put it back together"

well, is half a plan better than none...I guess we are still finding out the answer to that question.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

The Iranians have been brainwashed into hating the US.


The Neocons said the same thing about Iraq isnt it about time you cam back to reality?


(1) Not all of them, many of the younger generation do not hate the US at all. I have talked to a few with family there and most are tired of the Mullahs, the young want Levi's , MTV, and Satelite TV stations, but most cant becuase they cant afford it anyway. the economy sucks even with the high oil prices.

What you see as hate is Goevrnement sponsered not the total word on the streets. Look it up.

(2) Yeah the people were sure shooting at us when we were pulling statues down and such. The Insurgency came later AFTER the MAJOR combat was over. Nothing other than Falujah comes to mind as being major size anymore.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


(1) Not all of them, many of the younger generation do not hate the US at all. I have talked to a few with family there and most are tired of the Mullahs, the young want Levi's , MTV, and Satelite TV stations, but most cant becuase they cant afford it anyway. the economy sucks even with the high oil prices.


People may want a better quality of life that dosnt mean they want the USA. MTV is probaly meaningless to most of the young people of Iran.



What you see as hate is Goevrnement sponsered not the total word on the streets. Look it up.


I deal with facts not fanasty.


(2) Yeah the people were sure shooting at us when we were pulling statues down and such. The Insurgency came later AFTER the MAJOR combat was over. Nothing other than Falujah comes to mind as being major size anymore.


Of course the insurgency came after major combat.
Didnt you notice how quick the insurgency took hold?
Your approaching the insurgency with conventnal warfare thinking.
The insurgencys blow themselvs up in markets and dont adhered to conventnal warfare.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Lets just say I have heard first hand accounts from Iranian relatives of some people I know, they tell me that a good deal of the population does not hate America near like the official position. That is why the vote was controlled because of the desire to normalize relations with the US is shared by a good portion of the population.

How do I know this? Well why rig the elections with only mullah backed candidates if they couldn't have lost anyway?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
ED do your relatives live in Iran?
With all do respect what your saying is hear say. Perhaps the elections were rigged to ensure that the consertives stay in power. In other words to ensure women dont have any rights and society is based on Islam.
What makes you think the people of Iran would welcome America?
Surely after post war Iraq you still dont think that the people will welcome american influence unconditionally?
Ed you dont have a plan for Iran after the bombing finishs,
You havnt said who would make up any new government in fact we cant even be sure the current government will fall.

All you have is a plan for a air war and some vague refernces to people who want greater freedom. If people in America said they didnt want to live there lives by reglion you would label them as a tuilpwalker.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I say again, troops would not be needed, I feel the country would implode if the trigger was right. There are many Iranians HOPING the US invades.


There are many pro US people in Iran, they even held candle light vigils after September 11th.

That does not mean that they're hoping the US invades.
I've read that even the people who don't like the Mullahs don't support a US invasion to remove them.

As far as a revolution from within, officials within the government say it's not likely.



Iran: Revolution, Unrealistic

A classified analysis by the U.S. intelligence community warned top Bush administration officials last spring that the theocratic reign of Iranian mullahs could be entrenched for years to come, NEWSWEEK has learned. This National Intelligence Estimate, issued by a unit of the new National Intelligence Director's office, reported that Iran is not in a prerevolutionary state and that near-term regime change appeared unlikely, say U.S. officials familiar with the report who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the material.

--snip--

The analysts also noted that Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was Tehran's mayor and a dark-horse presidential candidate at the time of the NIE's publication, might have a surprisingly strong following among poorer Iranians because of his reputation as an anticorruption campaigner.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
In my opinion, Dean's statements are strategically bankrupt, and he probably is aware of this. I doubt that Dean would advocate force on Iran even if we had the forces. I think that this is politics as usual- formulate a popular lie about what you'd like to do, then claim that you REAL agenda is the second best option left to you by the errors of your opponents. Both sides use such tactics.

The truth of the matter is that occupation is not a military necessity for dealing with Iran. We can shut down the Iranian army's ability to strike into Iraq with a heavy air campaign and some reallocation of troops already in Iraq (to rebuff what little offensive they might be able to put together on short notice while under heavy attack from the air). Once we've dulled their ability to bring the war to us in Iraq, we can level their nuclear program at will.
Six months, no boots on the ground at all, we can destroy their nuclear program, virtually destroy their military mobility, and open up the perfect opportunity for the Iranian people to rise up if that is their will.

It sure would be nice if politicians would leave military affairs to those who study and understand them.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond



Six months, no boots on the ground at all, we can destroy their nuclear program, virtually destroy their military mobility, and open up the perfect opportunity for the Iranian people to rise up if that is their will.

It sure would be nice if politicians would leave military affairs to those who study and understand them.


Do me a favour go back thou and read this thread again pay particular attention to Edsingers posts and then answer the questions that I and other posters have asked. Once you have given answers that are based on fact and that dont avoid the questions , I will give your plan a second look.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Six months, no boots on the ground at all, we can destroy their nuclear program, virtually destroy their military mobility, and open up the perfect opportunity for the Iranian people to rise up if that is their will.


Aren't you worried that Iran will conduct assemtric warfare against the US in response to those attacks?
The retaliation could even be on US soil as payback for launching attacks on Iranian soil.

I doubt they're just going to sit back and do nothing after being bombed.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Well it's nice to be in demand I guess, even if the demand is only to read 3 pages of unchecked negativism and complete disregard for American objectives which skews the entire discussion.

Let's begin with a simple evaluation of America's strategic priorities relating to Iran. All the touchy feely crap about giving women the vote and bringing down radical Islam goes straight to the garbage bin. America has no reason to give a rip what the Iranian people believe or how they treat their wives. What America does care about are the following:

1. Keeping nuclear weapons away from potential aggressors in the Middle East. This can be resolved from the air, with a relatively low number of sortees even.

2. Destroying Iran's Aerial and Naval ability to threaten access to the Strait of Hormuz, which could be used to cut off oil flow or American naval access to Kuwait and Iraq. This can be accomplished from the air as well, although it will take more time and munitions.

3. Eliminating the Iranian militaries ability to manuever against neighboring countries, especially Iraq, as well as it's ability to respond with full effectiveness against a prospective uprising. It need not be entirely destroyed, only deprived of mobility by the targeting of aircraft, fuel storage, and the vehicles of key units. This can be accomplished by extensive bombing.


Now, the Iranian people may or may not attempt an uprising and may or may not be successful in it, but remember this, Saddam WOULD have been gone six months after the Gulf War, if the attempted coup had not suffered the same fate as the Bay of Pigs invasion.
www.representativepress.org...

An excerpt: "Our programme [Panorama on England's B.B.C.-1] has found evidence that several Iraqi generals made contact with the United States to sound out the likely American response if they took the highly dangerous step of planning a coup against Saddam. But now Washington faltered.


The Iraqi military revolted after the gulf war. If had just given them back their weapons and used our airpower to clear the way for them, they would have been able to take Iraq. We rebuffed them because we feared the division of Iraq. We didn't want the South in Iranian hands, nor the Kurds attempting independence.

There is strong reason to believe that if we could defeat Iran decisively and destroy their command and control infrastructure that the CIA could infact convince officers who did not support the Mullahs to make their move, just as the Iraqi generals were willing to seize the moment when we had Saddam on his heels.

That would be ideal, but is not even really necessary. Truth be told, it is of little matter to us whether or not Iran remains a theocracy, or even a haven for terrorists. Reducing the strategic threat posed by Iran, as well as increasing our ability to carry out small scale operations against terrorists in Iran can be accomplished strictly from the air. If Iraq has proven anything it is that a half-hearted occupation of less then 300,000 troops doesn't do as muc as we would like for exterminating terrorists. So why put them there at all, when simply weakening them would allow us to make special forces incursions or airstrikes on targets as they appear, without putting a large force in country to be sniped at?

The only real concern over who ends up in control or whether the nation falls into civil war is that it might cut back on oil production, and frankly I think it would be good idea to let the happen. It would force the UN's hand into putting in peacekeepers and carrying out the occupation for us if the need for boots on the ground should arise.

So there you have it- the threat from Iran is a strategic one rooted in the technical capabilities of their armed forces, and can be eliminated from the air. Controlling Iran and rooting out every last terrorist and mullah is not necessary. It would be a nice bonus, but if it can't be accomplished through encouraging an uprising or forcing a civil war which leads to the UN being forced to carry its own weight for a change, then it need not be undertaken at all.

As I said the first time, occupation is not strategically necessary.
The Vagabond has spoken. If history is any indicator, there is a 50% chance that this discussion will be dead in a day. (I still haven't entirely figured out why threads die once I give the run-down, but it has this funny way of happening).



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Im curious if anyone can give any examples where this strategy has worked historically.
Maybe I am being needlessly negative but this strategy seems to go against commonsense.

What isnt at an issue is our ability to destroy specific targets from the air.
We will be able to destroy anything that we have identified as a threat.
The issue is our ability to operate so precisely once we have struck.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
That would depend on the context you are referring to.

There is ample precedent for the accomplishing limited strategic goals without using a large invasion force or ground troops at all. Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor, the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis, the use of nuclear weapons to force Japan's surrender in WWII, the use of only a handful of US Marines as the nucleus of a foreign force in the First Barbary War (specifically in the taking of Derna), etc etc.
That much is fairly simple I think you will agree- limited goals can be accomplished with limited force.

If you are referring instead to a war being fought entirely from the air, there is precedent, and then there is not. The Iraqis in 1992 actually did agree to surrender before the ground campaign was begun. The United States did not accept this surrender, presumably because 1. It gave the Iraqis 3 weeks to withdraw (and continue looting) and 2. The US had a point to prove to the world.
For the most part, there has not been an example of a war fought entirely from the air because such capabilities are extremely new, and even now are only mature enough to handle select situations.
Airpower is slower, more costly, less efficient, and less effective, but for limited objectives it is sufficient when conditions forbid a large ground offensive. The capabilities are only growing as well. In 100 years, there will likely be several more incidents to cite of wars being effectively won from the air, especially wars of limited strategic objectives.

You can not control territory from the air alone, but you can reduce the enemy's capabilities. When a reduction in the enemy's ability to pose a threat is the chief aim of a war, airpower is a viable answer.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
ED do your relatives live in Iran?
With all do respect what your saying is hear say. Perhaps the elections were rigged to ensure that the consertives stay in power.



No but I DIRECTLY know those that have.

No they rigged them because there was a good chance they would have lost.

Become Americas best friend? Not a chance.......never claimed it.

But for the rest, Vagabond answered it better than I could...



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Edsinger, you're disillusioned and very ignorant to the concepts of military tactics as it has been redudantly clear over and over in this post. Irans fighter jet's may not be able to math, technologicaly, against those of America's, however, when American cannot afford to send this might air force into Iran without any severe financial ramnifications, you come across a plethora of problems.

Dropping a bomb on Iran would end whatever respect America may have had in the global community, and I would like to see some coherent logic behind this reasoning.



(1) Not all of them, many of the younger generation do not hate the US at all. I have talked to a few with family there and most are tired of the Mullahs, the young want Levi's , MTV, and Satelite TV stations, but most cant becuase they cant afford it anyway. the economy sucks even with the high oil prices.


A few is not most Iranians, Edsinger. I could very well tell you that I am aware of many Iranians that are pro Mullahs and hope the U.S. Invades, yes, invades. How does that twist your logic? You cannot even substantiate a single claim you tout as fact, it's nothing but non-sensical babbling that is just tuatologous and annoying now.

Luxifero

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Luxifero]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Why can't Iran have Nuclear Weapons?

Because our Government does not like them?
Because some of the people in our Country do not like the idea?

By the same logic Iran and the Iranian People are able to say the same about America.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I feel like a bit of a broken record because it seems I'm constantly hammering the same points, but what choice do I have when I keep coming up against the same misconceptions. Please forgivingly forgive my redundant redundancy, but here it comes again.

Odium: Yes, Iran can in fact say the exact same thing to America. You nailed that one beautifully. Here is the catch: it's not a moral question, so reciprocity is not contradictory.

It's a question of oppression. We live in a world of conflict between mutually exclusive desires. The predator wants to eat, the prey wants not to be eaten. You want the guy who drives 45mph in the fastlane to move right, but he wants to stay in the fastlane. Iran wants to have nukes, but America wants Iran not to have nukes.

There is no proven source from which to derive absolute morality in these matters. We could attempt to weigh the fruits, but it ends up a wash because what one side gains must be taken from the other. In short, the only governing principles are those of will and capability. America has the will and capability to deny Iran nukes. Iran has the will but not the capability to reciprocate.

Note that I am not saying that might makes right- I am saying that there is no right. Someone will win, and someone will lose, and in the grand scheme of things nothing is gained or lost, only transfered. I suppose you could call it Moral Thermodynamics.

What is fair is what's the same for everyone, and this is the same for everyone. Everyone fights for their own best interest. Everyone wins a few and loses a few. Yesterday's superpower is tomorrow's parriah, and when that change comes they have no right to complain, they can just keep fighting through till their next chance to win comes along. From down in the thick of it all it looks chaotic and unfair, but from an objective distance and over an extended timeline the balance of it becomes clear.


Luxifero: While picking on people is a time honored tradition on ATS, especially in politically charged threads, it's a tradition whose time has come and gone. Calling somebody ignorant is a tired and unimpressive old trick. If you want to get ahead of the curve before it becomes trendy, I'll let you in on a secret. Proving someone ignorant without every explicitly saying it is the next big thing on ATS. Trust me on this one, I've been doing it hit and miss for over a year and people do respond.

Unfortunately you've got a long hard road ahead of you if that's the avenue you choose to take, because respect isn't what gets things done in this world, nor popularity, nor groveling to the UN. The only fool proof way is to scare the crap out of our enemies, and to BEAT the crap out of those who refuse to be scared. The message we need to convey is a simple one- The United States does not bluff. You will reach agreeable terms with us, or you will have whatever terms we like thrust upon you at the point of a bayonett.

There would be costs to attacking Iran, but they are not insurmountable (yet). The loss of respect is negligible- we've already lost it. The only thing that has really changed now is that the countries which were never great friends anyway are now actively calling us names.

Iran can't stand against us militarily (yet) and they can't shut down the oil to such an extent that it would destroy us (yet), although they will be able to do those things some day down the road if we don't draw the line here.

What we need to do is stop small threats while they are still small, not only for the sake of stopping them, but for the sake of convincing future threats that we are not bluffing, so that they will compromise.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join