# You ready to attack Iran?



## Uknow_me72 (Jul 9, 2008)

Here is the next Iraq. Iran. This is a shame. They are going to do the same crap that they just did to Iraq. The stories all over the media and Bush and congress has mentioned it several times. 

Now it is when will we start to kill more people?

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


----------



## wayne (Jul 10, 2008)

I can't believe you are a military man. Look at the people, military and terrain of Iran, there is no way an American general is going to lead an army into that place with out a full scale mobilization or nukes.   A raid or a short-term incursion may be possible, but an invasion is out of the question.  You never fight unless fight unless you know you are going to win. War is not about being macho, is about survival.


----------



## Diuretic (Jul 10, 2008)

I can't see it happening, there's no-one in the Bush Administration crazy enough to do it.  Okay maybe Cheney but he would be a lone voice.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 10, 2008)

wayne said:


> I can't believe you are a military man. Look at the people, military and terrain of Iran, there is no way an American general is going to lead an army into that place with out a full scale mobilization or nukes.   A raid or a short-term incursion may be possible, but an invasion is out of the question.  You never fight unless fight unless you know you are going to win. War is not about being macho, is about survival.



Who said this knucklehead is a "military man"?  He's the board "We Are the World" guy.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

We can only hope we never need to invade Iran. Air and Sea power should be enough to keep them in check.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 15, 2008)

We did Iraq so we would not need to do Iran. I agree with Wayne. The only thing we have on our side would be we could take down their Air Defense and Air Force in days and their side probably does have maneuver capabilities any better than the Iraqis. They used human wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. 

Despite that fact, Iran is just too large. We could do it with maybe 300k-500k force. But, where would they come from. Not to mention the logistics.

So far everyone agrees we won't or shouldn't do it.  Does anyone want to take a crack at, if we did do it, how should we do it?


----------



## Striker (Jul 26, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> We did Iraq so we would not need to do Iran. I agree with Wayne. The only thing we have on our side would be we could take down their Air Defense and Air Force in days and their side probably does have maneuver capabilities any better than the Iraqis. They used human wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war.
> 
> Despite that fact, Iran is just too large. We could do it with maybe 300k-500k force. But, where would they come from. Not to mention the logistics.
> 
> So far everyone agrees we won't or shouldn't do it.  Does anyone want to take a crack at, if we did do it, how should we do it?



My pet theory:

Iran fought for 8? years against an Army (Iraq) that we rolled over in weeks.

I believe that the WMD rationalization was secondary to the tactical need to flank Iran on three sides. i.e. Afghanistan to the East, Iraq to the West and the Indian Ocean to the South.

Pakistan is an unknown. The recent bombing of Indian interests may seal their fate.

Syria is Israels. Or we could go west and take them out as well. The problem is that we are stretched thin. This whole thing could go South real quick.

Just my opinion.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> We can only hope we never need to invade Iran. Air and Sea power should be enough to keep them in check.



As in embargo ? That didn't pan out too well in Iraq.


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 26, 2008)

> You ready to attack Iran?





Uknow_me72 - Don't make me come smack you!    Bite your tongue!


----------



## Striker (Jul 26, 2008)

Uknow_me72 said:


> Here is the next Iraq. Iran. This is a shame. They are going to do the same crap that they just did to Iraq. The stories all over the media and Bush and congress has mentioned it several times. Now it is when will we start to kill more people?/]
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a more ignorant, childish, obnoxious form of communicating than rap?
> ...


----------



## Paulie (Jul 27, 2008)

Striker said:


> Has there ever been a more ignorant, childish, obnoxious form of communicating than rap?
> 
> Let me give it a try:
> 
> ...



Gay.


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

We'd win the war and then lose the peace.

We're good at that.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

Depends on what you mean by attack.  

I favor bombing the government, military and Nuclear facilities. I would Not favor any kind of invasion.

Personally I think the People of Iran would love to toss out the ideologs who rule their country today, so lets just nudge them along. 

No Invasion. That would be a serious Mistake IMO.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 27, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Depends on what you mean by attack.
> 
> I favor bombing the government, military and Nuclear facilities. I would Not favor any kind of invasion.
> 
> ...



Why bomb them---are we in imminent danger ? First and foremost---is it legal???  I certainly don't want to be hearing all that "it's illegal" shit again.


----------



## CA95380 (Jul 27, 2008)

Oh no ... here we go AGAIN!  Somebody grab Bush and ship him to Never, nerverland .... before he can talk anyone into invasion.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Not gonna happen. First, it'd be a total disaster, and second, public opinion is opposed to it.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 27, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Why bomb them---are we in imminent danger ? First and foremost---is it legal???  I certainly don't want to be hearing all that "it's illegal" shit again.



I believe if Iran gets nukes the entire western world, and much of the Muslim world will indeed be in imminent danger. However I would love to see a peaceful solution to this problem.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Not gonna happen. First, it'd be a total disaster, and second, public opinion is opposed to it.



The caveat to this, though, is that if Israel decides to strike and it flares up from there, we'll get involved whether or not it will be a disaster and whether or not public opinion supports it.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

Right. I forgot that Israel had that Blank Check. You would've thought the Austro-Hungarian Empire would've taught us _something_...


----------



## Striker (Jul 27, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Gay.



That the best you got? LOL!


----------



## Paulie (Jul 27, 2008)

Striker said:


> That the best you got? LOL!



It didn't deserve even another single syllable, let alone any more words.


----------



## Chris (Jul 27, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Right. I forgot that Israel had that Blank Check. You would've thought the Austro-Hungarian Empire would've taught us _something_...



An Archduke Ferdinand reference?

You deserve a gold star.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 27, 2008)

= D

For anyone who missed the reference:

A blank cheque (blank check, carte blanche), in the literal sense, is a cheque that has no numerical value written in, but is already signed. In the figurative or metaphoric sense, it is used (especially in politics) to describe a situation in which an agreement had been made that is open-ended or vague, and therefore subject to abuse, or in which a party is willing to consider any expense in the pursuance of their goals.

This term was also used to describe how the Kaiser of Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm II) told Austria-Hungary officials that they could deal with Serbia however they wanted after Serbian Nationalists assassinated the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This immediately preceded World War I.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 28, 2008)

I bet Iran is just quaking in their boots, after hearing what Obama had to say.

"If Iran does not stop their nuclear program, they will face tougher and tougher Sanctions."

I bet when they heard that they were like. "oh sanctions ok(with huge smiles on their faces) Obama could have at least said the military option was still on the table.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 29, 2008)

yea dude.. CLEARLY the US should pounce on iran like israels lil attack dog!



go fight your own fucking war, dude.  you've got the nukes.  You dont need to hide behind an American curtain.  If you can't stomach democracy then you sure as hell have no reason to expect the US to keep you alive like an iron lung.


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Right. I forgot that Israel had that Blank Check. You would've thought the Austro-Hungarian Empire would've taught us _something_...


 
Not understanding history means never having to say you're Sarajevo.


----------



## Striker (Jul 29, 2008)

editec said:


> Not understanding history means never having to say you're Sarajevo.



Well put.

I am wholeheartedly behind a regime change in Iran. I don't care how it happens.

I'm also sick and tired of Israel's bullsh*t. They cry and cry about terrorism and Begin was one of the worst terrorists in history.

They treat us like slaves. The Zionists have their boots on our throats when it comes to interest slavery, the Federal Reserve, legally mandated insurance, MSM and have totally corrupted the Criminal Justice System. They make up about 8% of the population and 80% of the criminal defense lawyers in this Country.

I've got no hard feelings w/ Semitic people but there has to be something done about the Zionists. 

If Israel fell tomorrow, there'd be no tears here.

Close their account.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 29, 2008)

that AchIneedajob is using the same (almost precisely the same) rhetoric to pursue nuclear weapons that Hilter used to abrogate the Treaty of Versailles and rearm Germany in the 1930s?

Hitler offered that Germany was dedicated to peace but it was unfair that the Great Powers (England, France and Italy) had such a dramatic imbalance of arms. He argued that if Germany was allowed to gain some sort of parity with the Great Powers that Europe would be assured of peace. He even offered to completely disarm if they would (watch for that next from our Iranian friend). He even made a treaty, behind the other power's backs with England that Germany would never build a navy larger than one-third the size of England's. (Of course they had figured out that all of their production at full capacity couldn't build a navy larger than England's in 8 years so, that was a safe treaty.)

Well what's Amadinejad got to say? We're only building nuclear power plants for PEACEFUL electricity, which we're entitled to. Hey! We need a world organization to take the nuclear weapons away from the Great Powers because it's unfair and creates an imbalance...blah blah blah. I dunno, sounds like the same song second verse to me.....anyone else?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 29, 2008)

it's the same fucking reason WE use to bolster OUR military dude.  what the fuck are YOU smoking?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 29, 2008)

Striker said:


> My pet theory:
> 
> Iran fought for 8? years against an Army (Iraq) that we rolled over in weeks.
> 
> ...



I agree with the first part of your pet theory.

Ok, since speculation on how to do it has kinda petered out, here's my take. Assuming, _en arguendo_,  the US does it. I don't see any stomach around for a full scale mobilization of the US armed forces. So, absent something crazy happening, that's out.

_Cassus belli_? Iran makes some demonstration that they are dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon or have a crude untested one. Or, Iran follows through with blockading the Straits of Hormuz.

My best guess would be a decapitating strike against Iranian leadership with a simultaneous attack on all known atomic facilities and missile facilities. All with B-2s and F-117/F-22s and cruise missiles. Concurrent missions taking down the air defenses and Iranian Air Force follow. With Iran laid open, follow-ups to the decapitating strikes take place. Also, attacks preventing movement of Iranian forces toward Iraq occur. The Iranian Navy is destroyed in short order and sea bases denied to them. Silkworm missiles present a hazard to US ships and measures are taken to defend and defeat them. Even still the US loses one or two ships with another heavily damaged.

Concerted effort is made to destroy the fulcrums of Iranian police state power. Significant covert action takes place to attempt to influence a popular uprising against the disrupted government. Probable civil war follows.

That's about it. We break it but we don't fix it. If the good guys win (Iranian people), maybe we revisit the decision. Either way, Iran is no longer a credible threat.

Anyone else?


----------



## Striker (Jul 29, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> I agree with the first part of your pet theory.
> 
> Ok, since speculation on how to do it has kinda petered out, here's my take. Assuming, _en arguendo_,  the US does it. I don't see any stomach around for a full scale mobilization of the US armed forces. So, absent something crazy happening, that's out.
> 
> ...




Damn! I like it. I like yours better than what I envision.

But what about Pakistan? Could we count on India?

China.

The Chinese are sneaking up our back door through Panama. That's what scares me about Obama the most. The Dems call to empty the Petroleum Reserve is sheer suicide. Are they doing this crap deliberately? Do they want to see us fall?


----------



## bush lover (Jul 30, 2008)

Our President Bush and our Vice President Cheney have repeatedly referred to Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and Iran is run by evil-doers who want to nuke our most important ally, Israel. Our leaders, including Mr. Kristol, Mr. Podhoritz, Mr. Perle, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Abrams and many more, have told us that we have to attack Iran to stop their terrorist aims against Israel. We must attack now, while our leaders are still in power. A pincer movement between Iraq and Afghanistan will be a cakewalk, just like Iraq and Afghanistan were.


----------



## Striker (Jul 30, 2008)

bush lover said:


> Our President Bush and our Vice President Cheney have repeatedly referred to Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and Iran is run by evil-doers who want to nuke our most important ally, Israel. Our leaders, including Mr. Kristol, Mr. Podhoritz, Mr. Perle, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Abrams and many more, have told us that we have to attack Iran to stop their terrorist aims against Israel. We must attack now, while our leaders are still in power. A pincer movement between Iraq and Afghanistan will be a cakewalk, just like Iraq and Afghanistan were.



I apprieciate the sentiment but we don't have the troops to pull it off.

Also, I don't see that Israel has done a damned thing for us except to exchange intelligence that helps us help them keep the lions at bay while all the while they insert spies in sensitive areas of our Government. Look at the list of jews you listed as the ones who want us to attack Iran. They started this crap, got us involved and I say that as soon as we achieve a regime change in Iran that we reevaluate our whole relationship w/ Israel. 

Besides, they just got their asses kicked in Lebanon.

I want to shore up our relationship w/ Germany and England/Austrailia. Germany is the strongest potential ally in the Free World. They alone could hold back the Russians as long as we held their rear. If it came to it, they could take the South Balkans and deny the Russians the Med and the Suez.

Germany's Prussian Militarism is a mere shadow of it's former glory and I would hope that their aggressive tendencies have been sated. If threatened, and they were meaningfully pledged as our Allies they would be a World Power overnight if threatened. Invaluable to the maintenence of Freedom.

They are, however, a sword that could prove to be a danger to anyone who wields it.

We should take them into our trust and enlist them. They deserve another chance.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 30, 2008)

Striker said:


> Damn! I like it. I like yours better than what I envision.
> 
> But what about Pakistan? Could we count on India?
> 
> ...



Thanks.

I don't think all solutions to these problems are military. As far as Pakistan and India are concerned, we need to be careful and understand what we want and expect out of that part of the world. We've been cultivating relationships with both of them. We need to use the diplomatic capital we've raised there to get the two of them to chill out on the Kashmir issue. Turn down the temperature and get to some kind of framework that would allow Pakistan to free its armed forces to focus on implementing an anti-insurgency strategy in the tribal regions. I view is currently as probably doable. But, that means we're in Afghanistan at least 5 more years.

I'm a hell of a lot more worried about China at least in a strategic sense then almost anything else. Another reason why it will pay to develop relations with India. A billion people sitting on the Chinese border is a formidable check. 

China is buying up oil interests in all sorts of unsavory places in the world. Basically, anywhere our morals won't permit us to go, you'll find the Chinese. My chief worry is what happens when the Chinese go to Chavez and say, we'll buy all your oil, you won't need to sell to the US. Think Chavez would hesitate? I think not.

If you want the nightmare scenario, China does that at the same time Iran cuts the Straits of Hormuz. Now we're fucked. No oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. So, we're down to about 40-50% of normal supplies. Oil prices would be passing $800/barrel. 

I bet the Dems still wouldn't allow drilling in ANWR.


----------



## Striker (Jul 30, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I don't think all solutions to these problems are military. As far as Pakistan and India are concerned, we need to be careful and understand what we want and expect out of that part of the world. We've been cultivating relationships with both of them. We need to use the diplomatic capital we've raised there to get the two of them to chill out on the Kashmir issue. Turn down the temperature and get to some kind of framework that would allow Pakistan to free its armed forces to focus on implementing an anti-insurgency strategy in the tribal regions. I view is currently as probably doable. But, that means we're in Afghanistan at least 5 more years.
> 
> ...



...and an empty Strategic Reserve. Good God.


----------



## editec (Jul 30, 2008)

War with Iran?

Mistake.

Not because of the military threat they represent, of course.


----------



## JimH52 (Aug 2, 2008)

This thread has been taken over by warmongers.  But I don't think bush and DICK  will be able to lie us into another war before they go away.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 2, 2008)

I don't think they're going to attack Iran.  But let's face it, if they want to all they have to do is order it.  They don't have to "lie us" into anything.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 2, 2008)

i disagree.  there is an image to maintain and a western nation to hide behind.  if israel said fuck it and launched an attack they'd lose popular western support and get their asses handed to em by about 5 muslim nations.

it's like the scrawny kid on the playground talking shit while his big friends are around.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 2, 2008)

And he's got a gun.


----------



## JimH52 (Aug 2, 2008)

I think the Lebanon battle a few years ago showed us all that Israel is not the invincible force they once were.  I think they would think hard and long before attacking Iran now.


----------



## editec (Aug 2, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> I think the Lebanon battle a few years ago showed us all that Israel is not the invincible force they once were. I think they would think hard and long before attacking Iran now.


 
I'm not so sure about that.

Their airforce can reach Iran, can't it?

I can see them taking out a facility or two that they consider a threat to their existence.

I'm not really versed on nation's military capabilities, but I think Isreal's AF is capable of a mission like that.

Bhen the shit would really hit the fan, of course.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> i disagree.  there is an image to maintain and a western nation to hide behind.  if israel said fuck it and launched an attack they'd lose popular western support and get their asses handed to em by about 5 muslim nations.
> 
> it's like the scrawny kid on the playground talking shit while his big friends are around.



Ya cause those same 5 nations pulled it off against a poorly armed and trained Israel in 1948, 1956 and 1967? That scrawny kid has tossed the muslim bullies about like rag dolls for years.

As for Lebanon, Israel hardly lost except for what they tried to do. Go ahead see what happens to conventional armies attacking them.

Ohh and what 5 nations would it be again?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 3, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya cause those same 5 nations pulled it off against a poorly armed and trained Israel in 1948, 1956 and 1967? That scrawny kid has tossed the muslim bullies about like rag dolls for years.
> 
> As for Lebanon, Israel hardly lost except for what they tried to do. Go ahead see what happens to conventional armies attacking them.
> 
> Ohh and what 5 nations would it be again?



Those same five nations didn't have the benefit of being armed by a modern russia THEN.  You are acting like the dominance of fucking third world countries is brave or something...  WHILE being fed western supplies, no less.


and yes, even israel will admit that lebennon was a failure.  Did they get their kidnapped soldiers back? no.  Did they destroy Hez? no.  It's one of the prime flaws that the haters of Olmert like to bring up.  Indeed, "conventional army"?  dont you mean that "SECRET" nuclear power that we allow?

Lebennon, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Not to mention Libya (lets face it, kadafi's fear was to be blamed for terrorist by the US), Algeria and Morrocco.  ALL easily muslim dominant.

Each of them would cooagulate like a fucking blood clot the day israel *attacked* without the backing of the US.  don't think so?  Ask yourself why we don't see the third temple rebuilt.  Zionists are usually ballsy while stationed behind the pantleg of the west.  Feel free to ponder why we wont see the jewish nation bing a wrecking ball to temple mount for the sake of the next temple of solomon.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 4, 2008)

Striker said:


> ...and an empty Strategic Reserve. Good God.



The funniest thing about their emptying the Reserve idea was they were only taking about 70 million barrels of Oil. That is only 3.5 DAYS worth of oil. It would have had even less effect on price than the drilling they say they opposed because it wont help.


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 10, 2008)

Auuuh the dogma of political propaganda, who do you trust, what do you trust, why do you trust??? ive alway heard where theres smoke there is fire. Do you think that Iran is just Bullshitting us???lol absolutly not they love political and economic sanctions, it buys them time. So whatever it is we decide to do, we best be sure, because i bet when Iran has perfected their objective itll be to late.....imminate danger says it lightly, mark it down......


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 25, 2008)

Striker said:


> My pet theory:
> 
> Iran fought for 8? years against an Army (Iraq) that we rolled over in weeks.
> 
> ...



It could go Nuclear, if not mistakin, i beleive Pakisan and India, both have Nukes and Iran as well real soon(with enough, talks, negotiations, sanctions and treaties we'll have bought Iran enough time to join the club)  India and Pakistan -- On the Nuclear Threshold  and  NewsHour Extra: India and Pakistan History - March 29, 2000  Now most on here would say the possibility's crazy maybe from our American stand point, but to the Arabs and Indians its a whole different set of rules...We'll just have to wait and see????


----------

