Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:03:13 AM EDT
I'm watching the speech that the President and German Prime Minister are giving about Iran. To me it basically sounds that if Iran doesn't stop the production of Nuclear Technology, we are going to be going to war.

What do you guys think about it?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:04:34 AM EDT
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:04:38 AM EDT
I kinda doubt it, perhaps some air raids but not much more.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:05:28 AM EDT
With what?

The only thing we should send over there is USAF brand Canned Sunshine.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:07:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By go3:
With what?




3rd ID is back in the states, taking baghdad and tehran within 5 years would be one hell of a feat. perhaps they will change their motto from "Rock of the Marne" to "Rockin the Hajis"
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:08:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



If they do, hopfully the can just draw their troops into the open desert...and use a bunch of tactical nukes and daisy cutters on em...

It will be very ugly if it ends up troop on troop.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:10:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 8:11:59 AM EDT by Hokie]

Originally Posted By Yossarian:

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



If they do, hopfully the can just draw their troops into the open desert...and use a bunch of tactical nukes and daisy cutters on em...

It will be very ugly if it ends up troop on troop.



It'd be ugly regardless of the chessboard.

good read thanks to FRIZ
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:13:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yossarian:

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



If they do, hopfully the can just draw their troops into the open desert...and use a bunch of tactical nukes and daisy cutters on em...

It will be very ugly if it ends up troop on troop.



An engagement with Iran won't be a desert battle, it'll be urban and mountain fighting. In GW 1, we met Saddam's armor in the desert simply because we invaded from the Saudi border. It's unlikely that we'd send our armor through from Afghanistan (the desert side) since that side of Afghanistan is controlled primarily by warlords, not the Afghan government.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:29:01 AM EDT
Don't get your hopes up for using a nuclear weapon to kill any hadji's. First off, it sets a REALLY bad precedent that it's OK to use a nuke before conventional options are exersized and exhausted. Secondly, it further would validate that Muslims are ok using a nuke on us some day. There isn't a right answer for this, several ways to go about it, but no right answer.

We could invade, win a technical war, and spend 20 years of an Iraq style insurgency. As it stands now, we can control to some degree how many Irani Jihadis come across the border to Iraq to fight us. When we occupy Iran, they are already there, and probably more than we are dealing with in Iraq. Saddam was a man virtually everybody in Iraq hated and wanted out of power, I could be wrong, but it's more a religious issue than a political one, and they for damn sure don't want us helping them figure it out. College students aside, of course.

We could do another shock and awe attack and try to take out their leadership at the same time as destroying the assets that we think they have. In a country with as much religious stucture and influence, any power vacuum won't last long, and the ones who who replace any dead leaders are likely to be inexperienced and hot headed. Won't look good to other countries that we keep kicking off wars by decapitating the enemy's leadership. See above comments about Bad Precedent.

We could bomb the piss out of them, removing whatever assets we think we they have. Obviously, this won't stop them, only slow them down. Probably the smart answer, and it won't be too hard to sell the idea to other countries: See Bush's meeting with Merkel..

It is my best hope that it won't happen in my lifetime, but the world will have to come to grips with Radical Muslims aquiring nuclear capability at some point in history. The antidote to the current problem is basic education of the Muslim world. Unlike other societies, the Muslim societies of the far east have never enjoyed their own Age of Enlightenment. This is not something we can inject into their culture with 20 years of nation-building, it's something they have to see for themselves. Obviously, the Mullahs are an obstacle to all of this, and will have to be removed from power internally before any change can happen for the better. Control of information is key here-if every Hadji had access to the internet (or every Chinese person for that matter) the world would be a much different place..

Dave
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:29:44 AM EDT
Don't ask your 10 division Army to do what is required by an 18 division Army.

Don't ask your 10 Wing Air Force to do what is required by a 20 wing Air Force.



Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:31:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:34:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
As it stands now, we can control to some degree how many Irani Jihadis come across the border to Iraq to fight us.



I don't think we're having much of a problem with fighting Iranians in Iraq. The insurgency is definitely sunni dominated. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq was probably the nicest thing that we've ever done for Iran. There's now a shiite majority in charge that looks to Tehran for spiritual guidance.

I do agree with your point that the only real way for the West to "defeat" radical islam is through education and economic development. If you look at a country like Malaysia, where internet access is common and standards of living are high, radical Islam has almost no foothold. The fundamentalist party has steadily lost parliamentary seats every election.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:36:42 AM EDT
"we"?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:47:11 AM EDT
How about a nonconventional engagement in which we kill high asset targets such as scientists, mullahs et al? Our guys would work w/ locals interested in a power change. While dangerous I think it would prove to be highly effective and relatively fast. I believe most people in Iran want the change so finding willing hosts probably isnt going to be too hard. I also suspect some of those contacts are already in place. Just a thought...
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:48:16 AM EDT
Nuclear production requires facilities. While some of them may be underground we can probably use a bombing/cruise missle campaign to set their program back or destroy it.

We are not talking about Regime change, so the requirement of a large number of troops to take the country over will not be needed. Although, regime change may result.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:50:27 AM EDT
Either us or our proxies the Israelis.

We aren't in Iraq to liberate anyone. We're there to secure oil and to intimidate the middle east. If they call our bluff, destroying their nuclear infrastructure is the lesser of the available evils.

Islam (Pakistan) already has the bomb, and it's our fault. Now we're just fighting a delaying/containment battle. They'll use it eventually, and we'll retaliate in kind. We're trying to put that off as long as possible.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:55:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
Either us or our proxies the Israelis.

We aren't in Iraq to liberate anyone. We're there to secure oil and to intimidate the middle east. If they call our bluff, destroying their nuclear infrastructure is the lesser of the available evils.

Islam (Pakistan) already has the bomb, and it's our fault. Now we're just fighting a delaying/containment battle. They'll use it eventually, and we'll retaliate in kind. We're trying to put that off as long as possible.



As much as I don't like the scenario, I can totally agree
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:57:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



Yes, the mess that:

over threw a murderous dictator in a few weeks (record time)


established an interim governent to write a constitution (record time)


voted on and passed a constitution (record time)


voted on and elected a permanent govt (record time)


Of course there is a violent terrorist group killing people. But not one of the terrorist goals has been met, and nothing has been stopped thanks to the fortitude of our troops and the vast majority of Iraqis.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 8:59:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
As it stands now, we can control to some degree how many Irani Jihadis come across the border to Iraq to fight us.



I don't think we're having much of a problem with fighting Iranians in Iraq. The insurgency is definitely sunni dominated. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq was probably the nicest thing that we've ever done for Iran. There's now a shiite majority in charge that looks to Tehran for spiritual guidance.

I do agree with your point that the only real way for the West to "defeat" radical islam is through education and economic development. If you look at a country like Malaysia, where internet access is common and standards of living are high, radical Islam has almost no foothold. The fundamentalist party has steadily lost parliamentary seats every election.



Yep, my point was just that we control that flow of insurgents coming from outside Iraq now. If we "occupy" Iran, it's more like Indian Country. There are more people loyal to the Mullahs in Iran than there are in Iraq.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:00:21 AM EDT
I think so, & the ironic part is that we'll probably have the same countries who didn't back us in Iraq (France, Germany, Russia), back us in Iran. Whether we hate them or not, i'd sure be happy to have them along for the ride.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:01:15 AM EDT
It's my opinion that the supersonic JDAM release two weeks ago had two purposes -
- a little showing off of the capability, and
- a warning to Iran.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an F-22 plus F-117 attack of their nuke "labs" to soften the Iranians up, followed by Israeli strikes to finish the job.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:07:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WyattEarp:
I think so, & the ironic part is that we'll probably have the same countries who didn't back us in Iraq (France, Germany, Russia), back us in Iran. Whether we hate them or not, i'd sure be happy to have them along for the ride.



Yeah, I think France has gotten their fill of Muslims this year... The funny thing is that there were rumors of the riots being orchestrated outside of France-you would think Hadji wouldn't want to bite the only De-facto friend that he has?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:10:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 9:11:08 AM EDT by TheOtherDave]

Originally Posted By AeroE:
I wouldn't be surprised to see an F-22 plus F-117 attack of their nuke "labs" to soften the Iranians up, followed by Israeli strikes to finish the job.



Good idea, have stealth assets get in there first to make sure that they are softened up...


Question is, that if you were running a country like Iran, and you knew something was coming, would you leave anything where it could be bombed? The question of bombing Iran's nuclear program has been going on here in ARFCOM for months-if we have been talking about it for this long, you have to know that the Irani military has been developing a contingency plan.

I would.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:18:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/13/2006 9:18:50 AM EDT by macman37]
I can almost guarantee you no nukes will be used. Imagine the international outcry (yeah I don't care about "international opinion" either but I'm not in charge, am I? ) if we used nuclear weapons to end another country's nuclear program... Kinda ironic in the grand scheme I suppose.

I imagine any Iranian war will be fought primarily from the air - and if someone goes over the border on the ground, it will be a coalition of non-US troops.

my opinion, worth what you paid for it. Caveat: All this goes out the window if a big terrorist attack occurs in the next year or so.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:24:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WyattEarp:
I think so, & the ironic part is that we'll probably have the same countries who didn't back us in Iraq (France, Germany, Russia), back us in Iran. Whether we hate them or not, i'd sure be happy to have them along for the ride.


We'll have to let Iran get a little more threatening before we get any outside help. I'd personally like to let Iran get worse and worse until Europe finally begs us to do something. Maybe someone will actually get worried enough to do something when Islam is figuratively knocking on the gates of Vienna again.
I'm rather sick of being bitched at for containing evil in the world. It kind of makes me wish we just let the hadjis go nuts on the rest of the world just for pure spite.

Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:28:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
...The question of bombing Iran's nuclear program has been going on here in ARFCOM for months-if we have been talking about it for this long, you have to know that the Irani military has been developing a contingency plan...



And it includes the missiles that Russia and France sold them.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:28:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



I find that interesting.

We were pretty sure that Iraq was close to devloping nukes. We went in.

We are pretty sure that Iran is close to developing nukes. Barring ANOTHER massive intelligence failure, We should go in.

This time, we don't have a need to grab and hold territory so we let our boys go in and do their thing. The weaknesses pointed out by a British general are all strengths for this kind of mission.

Link Posted: 1/13/2006 9:29:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
Either us or our proxies the Israelis.

We aren't in Iraq to liberate anyone. We're there to secure oil and to intimidate the middle east. If they call our bluff, destroying their nuclear infrastructure is the lesser of the available evils.

Islam (Pakistan) already has the bomb, and it's our fault. Now we're just fighting a delaying/containment battle. They'll use it eventually, and we'll retaliate in kind. We're trying to put that off as long as possible.



yup, that is the scary part. Muslims already have the bomb.

Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:21:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hokie:
It's complicated....we'll see I guess. If we didn't learn anything from Bush's Iraqi mess, then yeah, we're going to Iran.



Yeah I guess it's just some lucky coincidence we haven't been attacked here at home again since GW took it to the scum bags over there huh?

We owe those Mother Fuckers some pay back anyway, maybe you don't think so?
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:21:20 AM EDT
The United States and Israel can not permit the Iranians to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. It is that simple.

How we will do it is for the military planners to devine and for the civilian authorities to approve.

Diplomacy will be tried first. Coercion will follow, first from the United States, Israel, and possibly Britain.

The next step will be to get the UN to apply sanctions and then more direct action...but I suspect that most of the ROW will pussy out and hide in the closet and leave the field to the warriors.

Then we and/or the Jews will act.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:41:47 AM EDT
Well, since my deployment to Afghanistan got canceled....I would love to get a expeditionary award.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:43:18 AM EDT
Oh yeah. we're gonna hit 'em alright.

Just had to look at Rummies face when he was asked about it yesterday to KNOW.

Don't expect a land war, at least not right away.

I expect a conventional air strike of biblical proportion, followed by retaliatory strikes on our troops in theatre.

The Iranians are probably going to get some heavy ordinance on target somewhere. Could be the green zone in Iraq, or a carrier or two, maybe both. Either way we'll have more casualties in the opening moves of this conflict than in the entire WOT thus far. and terrorism will break out everywhere. And then there's the straits, a chokepoint for global oil transport we cannot defend without occupying Iran.

At that point anything is possible, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we escalated, maybe even used some low-yield nukes, if we took a big hit in Iraq or lost a carrier.

We'll prevail, no doubt about it, but it isn't going to be like Iraq, where they just rolled over and dispersed to fight a guerilla war. It's going to hurt this time.

Top Top