US will invade Iran in '06

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I believe Iran could be much more of a problem than most people want to concede. Or even realize. I've said it and others have said it, Iran is NOT Iraq. Anyone interested in bombing or changin regime in Iran should study its recent history and its current history. The facts are out there. At least enuff facts to make a wise-as possible decision on what's happening.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   


I disagree with you on this point: Our navy would wipe their seafaring butts easy. Their sea "power" is nothing compared to ours. That would not be an issue. AT least, not for long.


Assuming they tried to confront our forces directly, something I see as unlikely. More likely they would attempt economic warfare, striking shipping (read tankers) in the Gulf with subs, missile boats, and aircraft launching hit and run attacks, avoiding direct engagement with US forces wherever possible.

And I wouldn't undersetimate the havoc their Kilo subs can create.
They are slow and unglamorous, but in the shallow waters of the Gulf a modern SSK is a very difficult target to locate and neutralize, even for the USN. Allied SSK's have scored "kills" on carriers protected by entire battlegroups in exercises, taking out a few ULCC's would be a cakewalk by comparison.

As far as raising hell in Iraq, I wouldn't understimate what they are capable of. Really raising hell has not been in their interest so far, after all we've basically provided them with a brand new ally.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Iran stands a chance against the US in a straight up conventional fight. Especially at sea or in the air. And I think the Iranians know that well enough that they won't even try to wage that kind of war.

But I do think a full scale invasion of Iran will make every war we've had since Korea, probably including the first Gulf War, look like a minor skirmish. As for a post-war occupation, if you liked the Iraq insurgency, you're going to love Iran...

[edit on 1/5/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Think about Iran in this context: At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq got busy doing alot of nefarious blank. Iran went quietly off to thier (big) corner and re-grouped. Kinda like China did after the turn of the century. They have been quietly rebuilding themselves. Kind of like Reagan rebuilt our military in the '80s. They are probly much stronger, more plentiful and well fed than Iraq's military was when we drove them out of Kuwait during Desert Storm. That is not cake.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Far be it from me to take an enemy lightly. My basic approach to military subjects is that you want to work under the assumption that the enemy will play the hand they are dealt perfectly, that way you don't get nearly as many unpleasant surprises.

That being said, it is important not to overestimate your enemy, because hesitation and unwarranted caution create missed opportunities for decisive victories.

The United States should attempt to solve this problem from the air, while assuming that Iran will retaliate both on the ground, in the air (including with missiles) and at sea.
The answer is to position ourselves for a ground operation (not an invasion, but a decisive engagement to destroy an oncomming Iranian attack), move our carriers out of harms way, bring all necessary airpower and air defense into the theater, then attack.

There are several scenarios for attack that could work.

We could go at them purely in the air and in the gulf,
We could suppliment with Special Forces,
We could include an attempted assassination,
We could attempt to back a coup,
Or we could make a ground raid.

A full invasion/occupation is not to be undertaken. This would be less politically viable, it would be bad for the future of our reserve forces, it would be unncessarily expensive, etc.

I am not completely certain what ECK means by checking out Iran's military history, but if he's referring to the fact that they were able to fight to a draw with Saddam's Iraq, I'm not all that impressed to be honest.

We have the capacity to hold Iran out of Iraq if we adequately prepare. We have the airpower to dismantle any infrastructure we choose in that country.

Iran's Kilo subs and it's missiles can be gotten to. They can retaliate by terrorism of course- although I fail to see the cause for innaction in the fact that they might do something that they'd probably do anyway.

The stability of Iraq, frankly is of minimal concern. The insurgency is not a substantial threat, and if their government is ready to throw us out then we ought to leave anyway; we did what we went there to do. There is no more Saddam, if there ever were WMD there, there aren't anymore, Halliburton has their blood money- what good reason is there to care if we get kicked out of Iraq after mopping the floor with Iran?

China and Russia, to put it plainly, are not a threat in Iran. They've can't get substantial equipment there before the war is over, and any aircraft of air defenses they send are going to be severely out of their league, and will be destroyed.

There are some wars out there that America would have to be out of its mind to get involved in, and that would give the world their wish of seeing us learn our lesson. Korea with Chinese involvement would be hairy. Taiwan could be ugly. Trying to regime change and occupy almost anyone is never an easy proposition.

Knocking Iran's lights out? Please. As long as we get the drop on them before they get the drop on us, this will be yet another one of those wars that makes Russia and China's jaws drop.

I don't know if you're aware, but China freaked the hell out when they saw what happened in the Gulf War. They had no idea just how badly outmatched their forces and doctrine were. If they beleive that the terrain in Iran is going to slow us down that much... they could get a real shock if America goes after Iran smartly.


Now I do have one concession to make. I don't think the current administration would settle for an attack. This administration has repeatedly pursued a hidden agenda paramount to the legitimate concerns in the wars it has entered, and as a result has not succeeded in quite the manner that it should have. The current administration just might choose to occupy if the next election works out, and might justify it by baiting Iran into the first major strike, or with the good old USS Maine/Pearl Harbor/Gulf of Tonkin trick. Their rationale would probably be that 2008 is a lost cause for the party and that they have to do everything they want to do right away. If that happens, the volunteer reserve force is almost certainly doomed, the US is going to have a domestic political crisis, there will be another several thousand casualties over several years, there will be major problems for our budget, and China will be laughing all the way to the bank as they watch the stage being set for their birth as the next lone super-power in the wake of our political/economic decline.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Far be it from me to take an enemy lightly. My basic approach to military subjects is that you want to work under the assumption that the enemy will play the hand they are dealt perfectly, that way you don't get nearly as many unpleasant surprises.


The secret to success in war: know your enemy, understand the terrain & culture and know what your needs are to defeat him.


The United States should attempt to solve this problem from the air


There are problems air warfare cannot solve.


The answer is to position ourselves for a ground operation


With who? Are you willing to run (for office) on a draft platform, Vagabond? Good luck.

You are right on one point. It would be fought on the ground. When the aerial bombardments got old on the tv news cycles and relegated to the back pages of the papers. And when Iran submerged its warfare into Iraq and everywhere else in the world they could. At this point, it's something that doesn't actually need to happen. And shouldn't. Especially after what has transpired in Iraq.

If it does happen, I believe the final straw will be the US government re-instating the draft. The American people will not go for that. It'll be a head-on collison that might just need to happen. Who knows. It's bad all the way around.

It's true, there are several scenarios for attack that could work. Albeit, at tremendous cost. The point is, attacking Iran would entail a much larger force. Today, as we speak, Army and Marine recruiters can't meet their quotas. We can't control Iraq. That, to me, is a threat to our national security. The whole world is watching us there. They can see our vulnerabilities in a way that need not be. Going after Iran will only make things worse.


I am not completely certain what ECK means by checking out Iran's military history, but if he's referring to the fact that they were able to fight to a draw with Saddam's Iraq, I'm not all that impressed to be honest.


When we faced off against Iraq in Desert Storm, Iraq was said to be the world's 4th largest Army. We didn't see that as being some small thing. And that was after they had recently gone through a decade of war with Iran. Iraq's armed forces were weary, leery, probably undersupplied and uninspired. On the way over, we saw them, or their Republican guard, anyway, as being formiddable (in their land).


The stability of Iraq, frankly is of minimal concern. The insurgency is not a substantial threat


That's not true. BushCo ain't leaving Iraq. Until they leave Iraq, or seriously invest in the security of Iraq, it's gonna keep being bloodbathland. The insurgency threatens our troops everyday. What's the daily average of American deaths in Iraq now? 3? 5? It's been escalating.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Actually today was a bloody day in Iraq for civilians and US troops. By the way the insurgency in Iraq will not stop until US leave that country that is the way and the mentality of the Iraqi people that oppose the invasion aid by outside forces.

Now the Sunnis are meeting with Kurds to get into an agreement because they feel that the elections were a fraud.

The protest has been violent but we don't get to see any of that.

And did you know that the Kurds have their own government? funny the unification of tribes is none existent.

The Shiites in power are claiming that they have been attack by Sunnis and Sunnis are claiming the other way.

On top of the insurgency and the political chaos in that country is a civil war that nobody wants to acknowledge.

And If this is going on in Iraq I wonder if US invade Iran and the two countries unify with insurgency for one common cause.

I don't think that US will invade another country when the one he is working on is still wild.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And If this is going on in Iraq I wonder if US invade Iran and the two countries unify with insurgency for one common cause.


My biggest fear. A massive Islamic fundamentalist, oil-wielding state.
(Mesopotamia combined with Persia.. That's dangerous.)


I don't think that US will invade another country when the one he is working on is still wild.


I pray to God your logic holds, chica.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
this may sound crazy but i think iran is just scared on a level we dont even know. an maybe the real conspiracy is that this whole thing was never about iraq. it was about iran. they are the second largest exporter of oil other then saudi arabia.

saudia arabia, a monoarchy which does not allow or strongly restricts freedom of speech. is a large buyer of US arms. it has to because it couldnt defend itself against the huge populations compared to its mere 7 million people. the reason we actually sold them cutting edge technology to them, we said we wanted to balance out the power between them and isreal. in other words they wanted the war to continue and both sides to keep buying weapons, which was making billions. US advising saudi arabia to buy weapons, which leads to its poor economy, leads to tension between people in saudi arabia and US forces. Attacks of terror were occuring inside saudi arabia DURING troop occupation, much like the attacks you see in iraq. nothing was done about it really.

isreal was buying as well too, making alot of money for the US and europe who made billion of them as well. fueling this "cold war" type scenario between the two. iran was right behind them.

so now iraq is out of the picture and now what was once no chance of isreal attacking iran goes out the window with iraq now taken over. US forces move from Saudi Arabia. this shows that apparently united states feels that iraq and iran are no longer threats to saudi arabia, our number one supplier of oil. iraq obviously...but why iran? its obvious saudi arabia is cooperating with us, and now iraq isnt much of a threat. BUT we got old iran over there. isreal now posses a big threat, as does new iraq.

why? one reason is because americas influence in iraq now. right on their border im sure makes them very scared. isreal making secret attacks will be easier now since iraq is unstable currently but further more talks between isreal and US could occur. we are in control of iraq.

so now we got iran, the second biggest supplier of oil, the only real threat left to saudi arabia, our biggest supplier. you add up the facts and what you get is a mission to relieve our biggest supplier of oil by taking over the other huge suppliers who dont like saudi arabia in the slightest. truth is we got old iran seeing this invasion coming. they want nukes...and against forces like US known to have major cutting edge tech weapons and isreal who has become a real threat since the over throw of iraq and probably has nukes as well, coming right at them head on. they see this because its been obvious this has been the secret goal for year.

so whats iran to do? they are doing whats in their best interest. thats what they know they have to do to ensure there country. should they accomplish it they know and invasion from the iraq line is out of the question then, thus ensuring their safety.

though this wont be the case, we wont let them achive this, they need to be removed in the best interest of saudi arabia. why in the best interests of the saudis though? to let them continue their cold war with isreal, as long as they can manage both sides, they just keep robbing their society of money. saudi arabia will be easy to take out because lack of people over large area. we will set up our democracy over there because after there current leader dies it will be most likely that the regime change in that country will not like US since past experiences show people dont like US there. thats when saudi arabia will fall, and we can set up our "democracy" excuse. what happens after we have a bunch of democratic countries who are being real nice with their oil supplies with the US.

what about syria. well what can we say, its on them really. my guess is we might try but they really arent of any concern unless they start to cause a threat to isreal or new iraq.

im sure you may think it sounds crazy, but in simpler words, imagin having little to no resistance on oil exchange in the middle east? it will be a series of wars to lead to it. truth about it all is that their plan might not go as planned...depends on the x factors. like troops and the people at home who start getting real pissed as they watch their people die for oil and weapon profits of big business.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
For the comments on the Iraqi elections, there is a chance the elections werent a scam, as the majority of Iraqs population is Shia. I dont see why the didnt just have each sect elect a certain ammount of individuals and they would all serve in equal number in a parliament, becuase I dont personally believe that American style democracy can work in Iraq. They need more of a Parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. What worries me most personally is how these people cant get past petty differences of religion. Then again, I'm not an Iraqi, so I dont fully comprehend their differences. I guess they dont see it as simply as an average joe like myself.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Well, my first attempt at a reply was quite a bit longer than I would normally subject a friend to, so forgive me for summarizing rather than quoting. I'd like to make this lecture as humane as possible for the readers.

First and foremost, I think it is important to define the subject. I agree with you that this administration doesn't know the first thing about warfare (except that it can be lucrative if you don't mind losing). They have pursued an ill-advised occupation of Iraq which IS going horribly, and if they take us to war with Iran they will likely insist on the same thing and it will go even more horribly. I'm with you that far, that's not where I quarrel with you.

What I am talking about is what might be done by some hypothetical US administration that actually put the national security and strategic interests of the US ahead of certain corporate interests and private dillusions of grandeur.

There is nothing impossible about eliminating targets critical to the Iranian nuclear program from the air. Nor is there anything impossible about hindering Iran's ability to respond promptly by targeting their missile forces and certain roads and bridges.

Iran does have the option of attacking, but a defense of Iraq is well within the capability of the United States. We are not talking about an additional 200,000 troops. We're talking about reinforcements in the 5 figure range for a period of six to twelve months, and a redeployment of forces currently in Iraq to a defensive posture focusing on the Tigris River. Iran could come if they want, and if they did they'd be roundly trounced.

That being done, it would be in the best interest of America to afterwards remove itself from Iraq, and certainly it would not be in America's interest to invade or occupy Iran. The future viability of the volunteer reserve force is contingent on this.

The notion that the US military could not presently scratch it's butt without drafting additional manpower to do it is false- for now. All the more reason to do what needs doing immediately and subsequently draw down are force levels abroad to a more tennable level before we become as hard up for manpower as certain political agendas claim us to already be.

There will be terrorism in response from Iran. But Iran already carries out terrorist activity in Iraq, so I don't see how that serves as a deterrent, especially considering that we've already done what we meant to do in Iraq, and ought to be leaving, since we A. Can't seem to do any good by being there, and B. Don't seem to be welcome.

They have resolved to be our enemies, they are arming themselves, I don't see the big brain teaser here. First and foremost, we have to remove their hope of being able to take us. THEN we get the heck out of their back yard and see if they want to make nice, since we've dashed their hopes of getting the nukes they need to take us down.


In short, I'm not denying that Iraq has gone very very badly. I'm not denying that under this administration's model for dealing with enemies, Iran would be the death knell for the volunteer military.

What I am saying is that it is ludicrous to say that the Iranian military can in any way shape or form match ours if we employ it right. A vital component of employing it right is to handle Iran as quickly and with as little intensity as possible so that we can quickly get about the business of reassessing our policies and ensuring the continuation of the all volunteer military.
If we don't take out Iran first though, we leave the door open to a new crisis, a new war, a new looming threat of draft, and in the worst case scenario, a nuclear war between Israel and Iran that would kill millions of innocent people in that region and also have absolutely unfathomable economic and strategic consequences on the global level.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
omg, seriously some of you here need to think twice. lot of people going to die if a war happens. saying that Iran has nukes is a stupid reason, have you seen a east country use a nuke yet? I hope Turkey sticks by Iran, makes it even worse.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Hum . . .interesting could be that US is trying to train the Iraqis so they can help on an invasion in Iran if US decided to invade or attack Iran.

What better than have a ready army of their peers in the borders.

They were enemies onces after all, and they fought wars before.

I wonder.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by serlex
omg, seriously some of you here need to think twice. lot of people going to die if a war happens.


Okay, here it seems you're concerned about loss of life, which is a legitimate concern.



saying that Iran has nukes is a stupid reason, have you seen a east country use a nuke yet?


Saying yes, nobody says they have them, but by their actions it is glaringly obvious they are trying to get them. As the vagabond, myself, and others have pointed out, the world doesn't need anymore nuclear weapons, it needs less and eventually, hopefully zero. There doesn't need to be more, east, west, south or north. One important part of the question you asked was yet.



I hope Turkey sticks by Iran, makes it even worse.


Turkey won't. And here's where your concern for the loss of life seems to take a wrong turn. You hope it's even worse? You don't care how many Iranians die as long as they take a few more Americans down with them, huh?

It's funny how some who pretend to have an "anti-war" stance for their own political agendas are really thirstier for blood then the most red necked Charlie Daniels fan out there.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Can the US at least plant good WMD's this time ????? Jeez......

I mean, even good Cops carry a throw-down gun, come on.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Vagabond is right.

There is no doubting the military airpower that the US has , if brought to bear properly will destroy all hard tagets in Iran. Of this I can see no doubt.

The nuclear posture review allows for battlefield commanders to employ earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapons, preemtively if needed. I am of the belief that the first stage of the US attack on Iran will be the use of these weapons on Busher plant and affiliated hard targets. The other option would be for Israel to fly the first sorties and launch the preemtive nuclear weapons themselves, thus abdicating the US of blame internationally, and at athe same time sending a very clear message to the other Arab States that they mean business.

In my opinion this may be all that is needed for the crisis to be handled. However if Iran decides to retaliate ( against Israel and ME stationed US troops ) you will then see then " shock and awe " effort commence on Iranian soft tarets and its military / civilian infrastructure. US air power will dismantle the Iranian regime the same way Saddam was unseated. There will be an occupation , similair to the Iraqi fiasco , unfortunately. The differnce in Iran though will be instead of a go it alone attitude ( IE Iraq ) the US will let ( read force ) the international community to contribute.

I see this as happening soon. No later than March- Israel is on record as saying they will not allow Iran to go nuclear. As a nation , they can not afford to back down. They will attack Iran, and the US and the rest of the world will be pulled into conflagration.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I do believe that Iran's nuke capablities will be attacked and destroyed unless a miracle happens. I do not see an all out invasion. I think it will be a joint surgical attack using American and British cruise missiles and stealth figthers. I think that Bush will convince Israel to stay on the side lines as usual for obvious reasons. The forces needed for such a strike are already in play in that area and diverting them to Iran will not be such a big deal. The only problem will be getting all the concerned parties in the region on the same page. But thanks to the Iranian Presidents remarks of late, that job has been made a whole lot easier. But an all out invasion would be to costly in lifes to be justified. I believe that Bush and Co. are expecting the Iranian Government to hold back on any serious response and try to play the sympathy card with the rest of the world after the attack. The reason I say this is because Irans only real immediate response would be to attack Israel and the Coalition troops in Iraq. If Iran attacks Israel then that would give Israel justification for an all out counter attack based on the fact that they were not involved in the intial attack on Iran. The only way that Bush could get the Israeli's to agree to take the side lines is if they are giving a green light to counter any aggressive move by Iran. If Iran attacks the Coalition forces in Iraq, then that would give Bush and Co. the green light to go after the Iranian government. Remember the very beginning of the Iraq War when Bush tried several times to take out Saddam but missed? Deja vue all over again!



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
i really dont see a country (specially Iran) using nukes. power is what everyone wants, anyone seen syriana?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Call me nuts, but I'm gonna guess that maybe it's a really bad idea to start running this country based on movies. If Stephen Gaghan, George Clooney, and company want to run this country, they can buy their way onto the ballot and rig Ohio and Florida just like everyone else has to.

They might seem like nice guys, and all the stuff about genocide and destroying Western Civilization could be some kind of error in translation, but at the end of the day we're talking about introducing more dangerous weapons into an already dangerous region, potentially destabilizing a very very fragile peace. It's been 38 years since Israel has beaten the ever-loving snot out of the Arabs; 24 years since they've had a major foreign action of any kind. That's a record. It's unprecedented in Israeli history. Maybe this isn't the best time to start destabilizing things.

I thought the anti-war crowd was really big on pacience and diplomacy- where did that sentiment go now? How did we go from diplomacy to nuclear proliferation? In my opinion, if there's anything at all in this world less diplomatic than Bush, it's nuclear weapons.

I would be thrilled to have this necessary action taken by an administration of pure motives, which the Bush administration is not IMHO, but standing between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, I'll take my chances with the Devil, because we can always vote the devil out. If you think our government is getting hard to control, you should see what a nuclear Iran would be like.

Bush will probably do it wrong, and it will be ugly, but it will eliminate even uglier possibilities, and then we will have the ability to elect a congress that can drag him kicking and screaming out of the occupation with the primary mission of stopping the Iranian nuclear program accomplished.

Syriana!... are you listening to yourself???

Anyway, talk to you later. I gotta go watch Finding Nemo to figure out where I stand on environmental issues.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
lmao about finding nemo and environmental issues.

i think its our fault for letting isreal have nukes in the first place. you wanna blame some one for that well you should look at how we let them without much problems. theres alot of things going on over there that we have little info on or arent being told. not to mention the amount of money we made over there by fueling there war selling weapons to them saudi arabia and even iran. so yea, we fueled it, let isreal slide, and now we are in a situation we cant handle because we were hypocritical.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
now we are in a situation we cant handle because we were hypocritical.


We can handle it fine, it's just that many people aren't going to like it, and I don't really care. The future of mankind is at stake.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join