Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

Originally posted by edsinger
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.

Dean’s reply was political and does not speak to any 'inevitabiliy' or specific plans. The question was posed as: "Asked whether the U.S. might have to resort to military action against Iran", never really was answered by Dean, his reply was just a simple ‘Bush’ bash and ‘no option should be taken off the table’ is Bush’s public statement concerning this topic. But for Dean to use Bush's statement he recognizes the military is a viable inclusion of an 'option'.

The international contention is over the ‘Nuke’ issues, the US can apply a little pressure, publicly make jabs and dispense rhetoric; however ‘laying back’ (IMHO) is where the US will plant until after the UN is approached for sanctions against Iran. There is still quite a bit that will play out over these issues.


.

Originally posted by edsinger

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!

Don't give me that nonsense!

Of course we can make life a misery for Iran but that accomplishes nothing!
I'm sorry maybe I'm just being thick but what exactly are you suggesting?
It sounds to me like your suggesting we can just bomb Iran and all our troubles will go away which is ridiculous!

Even if we were to bomb Iran they would still be every bit as belligerent as before in fact they would be more so because you would have unified the Iranian people behind their corrupt regime!

So what would your "Grand Military Strategy" have accomplished then?
Other then turn the rhetorical hatred the Iranians have for America into an actual palpatable force. You think they're against us now? Wait until we bomb the crap out of them and leave them to stew in their own juices.

In fact I find it shocking that a rabid rightwinger such as your self would put forth such a strategy. It sounds awfully reminiscent of "Clintons Cruise Missile Campaign" against Osama Bin Laden and his perpetual bombing runs against Iraq you rightwingers are so fond of putting down as "ineffectual". Now all of a sudden these tactics are effective? Now that you think of it it's the greatest military advance since the machinegun?

If Saddam Hussein can still be threatening enough to warrant invasion because Clinton's policy of containment wasnt sufficient what makes you think Iran will be any different? Especially when you consider that fact that Iran is more advanced right now then Iraq ever was. If this precision bombing campaign was inneffective at stopping the pursuit of nuclear technology in a flat desert country where there is no place to hide what makes you think it will work in a country with mountanous terrain?

Stop being a hypocrite and see the folly of what you are suggesting.
Stop hiding behind your "tough Guy "conservative mask and see what the rest of the world sees.

Originally posted by boogymanStop being a hypocrite and see the folly of what you are suggesting. Stop hiding behind your "tough Guy "conservative mask and see what the rest of the world sees.

I happen to know that Iran is CLOSE to implosion. It will just take something to take the strong hand of the Mullah out of the equation.

Heck, we could hit their power plants, that might be enough to cause the GENERAL public to make a stand, but alas that might not happen because they can see the hesitantcy in the US policy now because of the Tulipwalkers. Would we stay the course? Not if people like you get their way..

What would bombing accomplish? Seems it worked for Serbia, not some piss ant cruise missile against a damn tent but INFRASTRUCTURE.....

Like we were blowing up the infrastructure of Iraq right?
Face it you've painted yourself into a corner here.
Either you admit that Clinton's policy of containment and strategic bombing of Iraq was sound policy and this current war in Iraq was unnecessary or you admit that this half baked scheme you've got masquerading as the best thing since sliced bread is as ridiculous as it sounds.

By the way how do you know that Iran is about to implode?
What is the CIA passing you top secret intel?
Did you swipe a copy of the Ayatollah's diary where he writes in detail about his secret crush on Condoleeza and how his countries about to implode?
Your talking out of your rear orifice here.

By the way if the air campaign in Serbia was so effective why did we have to go back to deal with the situation in Kosovo?
Surely if we were devastating the Serbs as much as your making out with our airpower they wouldnt have been able to mount an effective campaign against anyone let alone one that required a second intervention by international forces?

Originally posted by boogyman.Either you admit that Clinton's policy of containment and strategic bombing of Iraq was sound policy

Can you say that with a straight face? It was only killing Iraq's (#es). It was impotent and that policy was failing, Saddam was getting around the sanctions.

In a post 911 world - it was an unacceptable policy. Period.

Originally posted by edsinger

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

WOW the most informative post I've seen all day.

You have voted boogyman for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month

Ed we have to deal with reality not what we would like to happen. After Gulf war 1 we heard same thing "Saddam will be overthrown within 6 months" Remember?

During the 90s the CIA attempted tp overthrow Saddam and failed now unless there has been a shake up at the CIA how will Iran be differnt?

If the US has learnt anything from the cold is that corrupt regimes will only support the US for so long Iraq is proof of this. The only possible military action that could be of benfit in the long term is a full scale invasion.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by boogyman.Either you admit that Clinton's policy of containment and strategic bombing of Iraq was sound policy

Can you say that with a straight face? It was only killing Iraq's (#es). It was impotent and that policy was failing, Saddam was getting around the sanctions.

In a post 911 world - it was an unacceptable policy. Period.

And this differs from your Iran policy how?
I believe I've made my point.

Originally posted by xpert11
Ed we have to deal with reality not what we would like to happen. After Gulf war 1 we heard same thing "Saddam will be overthrown within 6 months" Remember?

During the 90s the CIA attempted tp overthrow Saddam and failed now unless there has been a shake up at the CIA how will Iran be differnt?

If the US has learnt anything from the cold is that corrupt regimes will only support the US for so long Iraq is proof of this. The only possible military action that could be of benfit in the long term is a full scale invasion.

I I fully believe that Bush Sr. dropped the ball and LIED to the #es. We encouraged them to revolt and then abandoned them, just as you anti-war folks advocate now.

Originally posted by boogymanAnd this differs from your Iran policy how?I believe I've made my point.

Well I guess you just dont get it, the Mullahs can not HOLD power when their infrastructure is burning. If it came to that, we would not need to take one single acre of Iranian land, just give it the right push and it will take care of itself. They might not be our allies, but they are no fools either.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess you just dont get it, the Mullahs can not HOLD power when their infrastructure is burning. If it came to that, we would not need to take one single acre of Iranian land, just give it the right push and it will take care of itself. They might not be our allies, but they are no fools either.

Okay lets say your right and the mullahs can't hold power under your scenario(which I am extremely skeptical of)...
Who exactly will be able to hold power then?
You don't think the country will decend into anarchy and civil war?
Hell Iraq is ripping itself apart and we actually have troops on the ground yet you expect a nation thats been bombed back into the stone age to resurrect itself as a progressive democracy without foreign assistance?

Please in detail explain how exactly destroying Iran's infrastructure will result in a pro-american progressive democracy? I really want to know.
Give me a step by step process detailing how this unprecedented achievement will come about.

Originally posted by boogymanPlease in detail explain how exactly destroying Iran's infrastructure will result in a pro-american progressive democracy? I really want to know.Give me a step by step process detailing how this unprecedented achievement will come about.

I did not say that it would be Pro-American at all. (Although many Iranians are)

Just why do you think the Mulahs FIXED the last election there, the Iranian people are tired of their rule. The economy is #, and has been getting worse ever since.

The Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians and very smart people. They want the freedoms that the Mulahs are not granting.

Its is mainly the young also (those that do not remember the Shah)

Step by Step huh,

Well if it comes to that, then a very systematic destruction of Iranian Naval & air power, this should take 1-2 weeks tops.

Next as a slow process you take away the Mulahs ability to govern , whilst supporting the elements withing the nation that want them out.

Iran will implode.....

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by boogymanPlease in detail explain how exactly destroying Iran's infrastructure will result in a pro-american progressive democracy? I really want to know.Give me a step by step process detailing how this unprecedented achievement will come about.

I did not say that it would be Pro-American at all. (Although many Iranians are)

Just why do you think the Mulahs FIXED the last election there, the Iranian people are tired of their rule. The economy is #, and has been getting worse ever since.

The Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians and very smart people. They want the freedoms that the Mulahs are not granting.

Its is mainly the young also (those that do not remember the Shah)

Step by Step huh,

Well if it comes to that, then a very systematic destruction of Iranian Naval & air power, this should take 1-2 weeks tops.

Next as a slow process you take away the Mulahs ability to govern , whilst supporting the elements withing the nation that want them out.

Iran will implode.....

How exactly will you support those elements without a ground presence in Iran?
How exactly will you prevent warlords from taking control of the country?
How exactly will you safeguard the nuclear material Iran posseses without ground control?
How exactly will you prevent Iran from becoming a another post-soviet afghanistan?
You right-wingers are always carping on and on about Iran's ties to terrorism.
How exactly will you prevent Iran from becoming a terrorist breeding ground without some kind of regulatory influence on the ground?

If you don't see how creating a power vacuum in a fundamentalist country with nuclear technology could be disastrous the you've lost all touch with reality.

Think regime change, it doesnt require ground troops on the scale that you imply.

Originally posted by edsinger




I I fully believe that Bush Sr. dropped the ball and LIED to the #es. We encouraged them to revolt and then abandoned them, just as you anti-war folks advocate now.

While I agree that Bush senior made a mess of the situation with the #es the admin only by itself made the decison.
What give you the idea that I didnt support the #es uprising?
Ed even if the government of Iran is overthrown you havnt said how any new government will benfit the region.

You blast Clinton for using the same tactcs and then in the next breath you advoate what you think Clinton did wrong!!!




[edit on 18-8-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11You blast Clinton for using the same tactcs and then in the next breath you advoate what you think Clinton did wrong!!!

Clinton did not promise them HELP as did daddy Bush....Yes it WAS the Bush Admin and it was the #es , not Kurds in which I refer.

Originally posted by xpert11You blast Clinton for using the same

Clinton did not promise them HELP as did daddy Bush....Yes it WAS the Bush Admin and it was the #es , not Kurds in which I refer.

Thanks for the correction.
Even thou Clinton didnt offer the #es any help the same tactics would be used. Ed you still havent answered a number of questions that are key to your plan.

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

What part of that is so hard?

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?

Lets see.
Your plan relys on the leaders of Iran losing there grip on the country the oppsite could happen.
Just who exactly is going to over the government of Iran?
You dont know who will form the new government.
Even if a new regime is put in place you dont know if there will be any benfit to the region or the US.

So far the only part of your plan that would be in place for certain is a massive build up of American air power.

Originally posted by xpert11

So far the only part of your plan that would be in place for certain is a massive build up of American air power.

I believe for the most part that would suffice for regime change. Remember the elections and the banning of candidates? What did the Mullahs fear so much?

But Ed air power alone dosnt ensure that the government of Iran will fall.
How dose airpower ensure that a new government will formed?
How dose air power ensure any new government will benfit the region?
How dose airpower ensure that a group of will overthrow the government of Iran?
The government of Iran did ban people from the so called election but that dosnt mean those people will overthrow the government.

Air power only takes care of a small part of the job!