Political Crossfire Forums

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

Well if you believe this guy, even though Dems hold the house, the administration will still try to occupy Iran. I don't think this is rational, I think the best thing we can do is to bomb there bomb making facilities, not make another quagmire But he also says that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons that Bush is lying, well tell me what you think. Invade or not to invade...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/19/061119153237.izy3r9c6.html

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 14035 Location: Himalayas

Even aerial attack will indirectly lead to a prolonged conflict and an eventual quagmire. This is because Iran will compensate for its inability to defend itself from bombing by using its army.

Any occupation of Iran will make the current occupation of Iraq look like a pleasant stroll through the park.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject:

(runs numbers in head real quick)

you'd need around 500,000 troops to occupy Iran........that mean a draft, it will never, ever happen.

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2375 Location: London

eynon wrote: (runs numbers in head real quick)

you'd need around 500,000 troops to occupy Iran........that mean a draft, it will never, ever happen.

That and a degree of tyranny not seen since the days of stalin.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject:

Somebloke wrote: eynon wrote: (runs numbers in head real quick)

you'd need around 500,000 troops to occupy Iran........that mean a draft, it will never, ever happen.

That and a degree of tyranny not seen since the days of stalin.

since I'd be one of those drafted I'm hoping for a more Roman-esque style of tyranny......Iran has a lot of hotties :wink:

(MDMA too)

JLB · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 26454 Location: Casa del JLB

We don't need to occupy Iran, just bomb their illegal nuke sites.

We have 4 aircraft carriers in the Gulf right now, btw..... 8:)

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject:

Good old Seymour Hersh. Up to his old tricks again. Didn't he predict a while back of an attack on Iran before now? Oh wait, he did. Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran - January 17, 2005

Quote: "The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

Yeah he doesn't give up. Almost two years ago he was spouting his accusations. It was only a matter of time when he resurrected his prediction again hoping that we would forget.

JLB · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 26454 Location: Casa del JLB

soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam.

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2375 Location: London

JLB wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam. Except that Iran has been a lot more careful about it's nuclear faculties...multiple sites, some hidden and all buried in concrete bunkers. One estimate had the number of necessary sorties in the thousands.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject:

Ozzone wrote: Good old Seymour Hersh. Up to his old tricks again. Didn't he predict a while back of an attack on Iran before now? Oh wait, he did. Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran - January 17, 2005

Quote: "The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

Yeah he doesn't give up. Almost two years ago he was spouting his accusations. It was only a matter of time when he resurrected his prediction again hoping that we would forget.

Hersh.......nice catch:
:)

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject:

Somebloke wrote: JLB wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam. Except that Iran has been a lot more careful about it's nuclear faculties...multiple sites, some hidden and all buried in concrete bunkers. One estimate had the number of necessary sorties in the thousands.

BUT.......we do have much better capabilities then the IDFAF had in 1983.........a large strike won't destory the Iranian program, but it may push it back a decade.

JLB · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 26454 Location: Casa del JLB

Somebloke wrote: JLB wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam. Except that Iran has been a lot more careful about it's nuclear faculties...multiple sites, some hidden and all buried in concrete bunkers. One estimate had the number of necessary sorties in the thousands.

We have far better weapons than the Israelis had in the 80s, and far better detection of radioactive sites.

We could, if we wanted, have air superiority in days with the carriers we have there now, and B-2s flying from Diego Garcia would have no problems taking out the highest priority sites.

We would really be doing them a favor, btw. The alternative is getting nuked by Israel.

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2375 Location: London

eynon wrote: Somebloke wrote: JLB wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam. Except that Iran has been a lot more careful about it's nuclear faculties...multiple sites, some hidden and all buried in concrete bunkers. One estimate had the number of necessary sorties in the thousands.

BUT.......we do have much better capabilities then the IDFAF had in 1983.........a large strike won't destory the Iranian program, but it may push it back a decade.

Depends on how successful you are in this. Remember the recent Israeli-Hezbolla war; a huge number of airstrikes against troops that had bunkers purpose-built for just such a contingency.

You need to consider the possibility that the strikes won't delay the Iranian nuclear program for very long. You might well end up with a situation similar to Iraq, with a large army and air force positioned around the country, constantly making sorties. That's just a small step away from an invasion looking like a positive.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:

JLB wrote: Somebloke wrote: JLB wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: Well if we bomb there bomb making facilities then they can't make bomb's right(for a while)? So how will that lead to quagmire, I'm not seeing that we need to have some form of action, we have learned from Iraq, Muslims hate us they do not wan't a democracy. So a show of force without occupation seems fine to me.

It worked at Osirik in the 1980s for the Israelis. No nuclear plant for Saddam. Except that Iran has been a lot more careful about it's nuclear faculties...multiple sites, some hidden and all buried in concrete bunkers. One estimate had the number of necessary sorties in the thousands.

We have far better weapons than the Israelis had in the 80s, and far better detection of radioactive sites.

We could, if we wanted, have air superiority in days with the carriers we have there now, and B-2s flying from Diego Garcia would have no problems taking out the highest priority sites.

We would really be doing them a favor, btw. The alternative is getting nuked by Israel.

that's what I was trying to say........thanx boss :)

JLB · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 26454 Location: Casa del JLB

No problem.

I don't want millions of Iranians to die because of their crazy leaders. Israel will not screw around if they think Iran has a bomb, and is going to use it. There won't be anything left if we don't step in and stop this madness.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 14035 Location: Himalayas

There is no doubt that aerial strikes would set the Iranian program back. However, this would merely encourage the Iranians to withdraw from the NPT altogether and quickly get to work recovering their lost infrastructure, as well as accelerating their development. There is also the very real possibility of Russia and China assisting them in this endeavour.

And again, it's foolish to assume Iran will just sit back and do nothing as it is being bombed. It can, at the very least, escalate the insurgency in Iraq to a level of its choosing.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject:

Kumar wrote: There is no doubt that aerial strikes would set the Iranian program back. However, this would merely encourage the Iranians to withdraw from the NPT altogether and quickly get to work recovering their lost infrastructure, as well as accelerating their development. There is also the very real possibility of Russia and China assisting them in this endeavour.

And again, it's foolish to assume Iran will just sit back and do nothing as it is being bombed. It can, at the very least, escalate the insurgency in Iraq to a level of its choosing.

well, I think the damage Iran can do there is already done, short of open war........the after we pull out Iran will be the major outside force in Iraqi politics, with or with-out American air-strikes.

You're right about Russia helping, but I again think that airstrikes have little to do with that.........China on the other hand won't want to risk their military ties to Israel, so I doubt they'll help much.

soldierofsoul · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 256 Location: Fl

JLB wrote: No problem.

I don't want millions of Iranians to die because of their crazy leaders. Israel will not screw around if they think Iran has a bomb, and is going to use it. There won't be anything left if we don't step in and stop this madness.

That is true Israel knows Iran want's to destroy them, so I would'nt blame them if they nuked them today...if only the president would do something about it...

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject:

JLB wrote: No problem.

I don't want millions of Iranians to die because of their crazy leaders. Israel will not screw around if they think Iran has a bomb, and is going to use it. There won't be anything left if we don't step in and stop this madness.

the key here is that no matter what we try to avoid loss of civilian life..........if that means scrapping air-strikes all together, so be it........BUT, if the alternative is open war between Iran and Israel, and the resulting slaughter of thousands in Tehran and Tel-aviv, then strike away.