Political Crossfire Forums

[JLB]

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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

[soldierofsoul]

JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Yes exaclty, it is the same thing with Iraq, they wanted the destruction of isreal, why can't people see that?

[eynon]

soldierofsoul wrote: JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Yes exaclty, it is the same thing with Iraq, they wanted the destruction of isreal, why can't people see that?

desire and means are different things, that require different reactions.........

[soldierofsoul]

eynon wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Yes exaclty, it is the same thing with Iraq, they wanted the destruction of isreal, why can't people see that?

desire and means are different things, that require different reactions.........

Well, it is not my own personal desire it is facts.

[eynon]

soldierofsoul wrote: eynon wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Yes exaclty, it is the same thing with Iraq, they wanted the destruction of isreal, why can't people see that?

desire and means are different things, that require different reactions.........

Well, it is not my own personal desire it is facts.

ah......my point was that while Iraq had the desire they lacked the means.......Iran has both.......ergo different senerio.

[soldierofsoul]

eynon wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: eynon wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

Well if we did'nt invade Iraq, what would they be doing now, you don't know and that is the point. America does'nt wait for it to happen we stop it before it does.
You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Yes exaclty, it is the same thing with Iraq, they wanted the destruction of isreal, why can't people see that?

desire and means are different things, that require different reactions.........

Well, it is not my own personal desire it is facts.

ah......my point was that while Iraq had the desire they lacked the means.......Iran has both.......ergo different senerio.

[Kumar]

eynon wrote: 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.
According to General Peter Pace, there has thus far been no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in Iraq. If they wanted, they could send over many Revolutionary Guard units to participate in guerrilla warfare as well as supplying massive quantities of armaments and financial aid to militias. This would require very little effort on their part. So far, they are content to just have considerable influence in Shia Iraq.

Quote: 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.
Agreed. Russia will be the key player.

[Kumar]

JLB wrote:
Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.
Do you believe Israel will use a pre-emptive nuclear strike? If so, they're even more of a danger to the region than I thought.

Quote: You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.
True, though the fact that such things have never been said tends to diminish your point.

[eynon]

Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: 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.
According to General Peter Pace, there has thus far been no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in Iraq. If they wanted, they could send over many Revolutionary Guard units to participate in guerrilla warfare as well as supplying massive quantities of armaments and financial aid to militias. This would require very little effort on their part. So far, they are content to just have considerable influence in Shia Iraq.

perhaps I'm sceptical about the war, but I think such support would merely speed up an on-going process.....the disaster has already happened......(it's like the Titanic sinking in 2 hours instead of 3).

where as war between 2 nuclear powers would be a whole new disaster.......even a conventional war between Israel and Iran would be horrid.

[soldierofsoul]

eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: 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.
According to General Peter Pace, there has thus far been no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in Iraq. If they wanted, they could send over many Revolutionary Guard units to participate in guerrilla warfare as well as supplying massive quantities of armaments and financial aid to militias. This would require very little effort on their part. So far, they are content to just have considerable influence in Shia Iraq.

perhaps I'm sceptical about the war, but I think such support would merely speed up an on-going process.....the disaster has already happened......(it's like the Titanic sinking in 2 hours instead of 3).

where as war between 2 nuclear powers would be a whole new disaster.......even a conventional war between Israel and Iran would be horrid.

Well Israel will be nuke it is predestined but will it happin in the next year that is the question.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

We could occupy, but it would be very tough and costly and kinda pointless unless we REALLY were serious about democracy there, which we aren't, so we should just do air strikes and be done with it.

[eynon]

soldierofsoul wrote: eynon wrote: Kumar wrote: eynon wrote: 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.
According to General Peter Pace, there has thus far been no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in Iraq. If they wanted, they could send over many Revolutionary Guard units to participate in guerrilla warfare as well as supplying massive quantities of armaments and financial aid to militias. This would require very little effort on their part. So far, they are content to just have considerable influence in Shia Iraq.

perhaps I'm sceptical about the war, but I think such support would merely speed up an on-going process.....the disaster has already happened......(it's like the Titanic sinking in 2 hours instead of 3).

where as war between 2 nuclear powers would be a whole new disaster.......even a conventional war between Israel and Iran would be horrid.

Well Israel will be nuke it predestined but will it happin in the next year that is the question.

eh? :?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

eynon wrote: Somebloke wrote: 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.[/quote]

The problem isn't the capability. The problem is how Iran can potentially undermine the Western efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole Middle East. The situation isn't as simple as taking out 5 nuclear sites and being done with it. Rather, there are multiple problems:
1- Is an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities going to be successful?
2- How long will such an attack set the Iranian program back?
3- How will the Islamic Republic government of Iran respond to this attack?
4- Are the US and other Western countries able to take hits in places like Afghanistan?
5- What is going to happen if Iran successfully pushes the US and other Western countries out of the region completely?

[eynon]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: eynon wrote: Somebloke wrote: 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.

Quote: The problem isn't the capability. The problem is how Iran can potentially undermine the Western efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole Middle East. The situation isn't as simple as taking out 5 nuclear sites and being done with it. Rather, there are multiple problems:
1- Is an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities going to be successful?
2- How long will such an attack set the Iranian program back?
3- How will the Islamic Republic government of Iran respond to this attack?
4- Are the US and other Western countries able to take hits in places like Afghanistan?
5- What is going to happen if Iran successfully pushes the US and other Western countries out of the region completely?

those are all valid concerns.........as I've said before the only reason to strike Iran is to prevent an even greater disaster.......

[Sands]

JLB wrote: 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:)
As usual JLB posts his first impression of the first Google page he hits
According to the US Navy's own site, there's only 1 carrier in the Arabian Sea as of Nov. 17th.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy.asp?id=146

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)

[Nico]

JLB wrote: 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.

Doing nothing will only create a situation where Israel will nuke Iran to defend themselves.

You can only say you are going to kill all Jews so may times before they start to believe you.

Just need you to find a link to where Iranian leadership said they are going to kill all jews :?

I've seen plenty of statements calling for the destruction of the state apparatus but can't recall any asking for the killing of all the jewish people.
It would be especially confusing, given that Iran has a large practicing Jewish population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm


Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.

[Nine_Enigmas]

The notion of Iran waging a nuclear war against Israel is patently absurd.

Even if Iran truly develops nuclear weapons and a sufficient delivery mechanism. Even if Iran doesn't care about the inevitable conventional and nuclear retaliation. Even if Iran doesn't care about the equally inevitable Palestinian casualties.

Even if all of these things are true, they would never use a nuclear weapon against Israel.

Why?

Unless it was a sophisticated device (like one of ours, Russia's or China's), the radiation would render that already desolate little strip of sand and rock we call Israel utterly unlivable for years. They would destroy or make unreachable two of the Muslim faiths most holy sites.

Neither political nor religious fervor would be served by this.

It's more than likely they want nuclear weapons for saber rattling and deterrence purposes.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Nope. We will work with neutralizing their assets without occupation; similar to Gulf War 1. We already have a year's worth of military infrastructure in Iraq. It would take an Army of 700, 000 men to invade and occupy. We don't have them and don't need to be moving our guys into a lower rent district. We can strike anywhere from Iraq, which is one of the reasons we are there. Anyone claiming invasion has any advantage isn't someone anyone should be paying attention to. Iran is ripe for a post attack Coup de Tat. With the C.I.A. taking over the Secretary of Defense job, regime change will take awhile, but distract Iranian leadership attention from WMD production. It will also make Iran devout its financial and military assets out of Iraq and into Iran. All in the plan. :wink:

[bigstick61]

It is foolish to think that the Iran problem can be solved through air power alone. You will need an effective ground force, which shouldn't be too hard. What is more cause for concern than a probable occupation is if China or Russia become directly involved, which they are obligated to do by treaty if Iran is attacked by anyone, which allows them to get oil cheap. This will make things considerably more complicated and difficult, and also has considerable potential to spark a third world war.

Out of the occupation of Iraq, two lessons have been relearned (unfortunately, since the days when these wars were fought often and simultaneously with success by the US, much has been forgotten or ignored). One is that you need a larger force than the one that invaded Iraq in order to secure the country initially, and thus prevent the insurgency from gaining too much power too quickly, should it arise. Second is that you have to use small war tactics to fight such a conflict, not conventional tactics as was done in both Vietnam and Iraq, to our detriment, with counterinsurgency specialists or veterans being largely ignored, or sometimes merely appeased. A prolonged occupation, or a large scale one, beyond a few months, may not be necessary at all; it could also be very necessary. Much depends on how events actually unfold, and this can only be theorized to an extent. We will not know what will happen until the events unfold, but we should be prepared for the worst from the start, which will significantly reduce the chances of that happening.

If Russia and China provide ground troops, advisors, supplies, aircraft and pilots, vehicles, etc., things will become more difficult and the conventional war phase could take much longer than the Iraq War, even including the minor actions which occurred until mid-2004, when all effective major units and officials were killed or neutralized. It could take well over a year, and if WWIII is the result, several years, in campaigns around the globe.

The key things to look at if we go to war will be: what will our forces look like and what will they do; will Russia and/or China get directly or indirectly involved and what will result from this; how will an insurgency develop in relation to our response, if at all?

[PricklySponge]

Another pre-emptive attack is not feasible. Let Iran instigate it, first.