Page 35 of 80 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 796

Thread: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

  1. #341
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Iran has never attacked the US or our neighbors in the past. Israel and the US don't have that clean a record.
    Directly? Iran has not. Indirectly, Iran has attacked many countries by supplying arms, support and cash. They are currently supplying arms to Syria so that Assad can kill off maybe 10,000 more civilians. Iran tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil. They are by no means, harmless. What more would they do if they thought as you do, that a nuclear weapon would protect them from any retaliation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You keep assuming Iran and its allies won't see it as an act of war and retaliate. That's not an assumption I am willing to make, based on the total lack of threat to the US.
    Over Iran? They won't. Iran is not important enough to go to war over. If we were talking about Taiwan or maybe North Korea, you could be certain of a violent Chinese response. If we were talking about Georgia or Siberia, you could be certain of a violent Russian response. But not Iran. Not if they understood that no invasion was planned. I expect there are closed-door discussions with Russia and China over this very subject. If the US planned strikes on Iran, you could be sure we would privately inform both than we plan no invasion, and intend to keep the oil fields intact. This would result in tacit agreement from both in private, condemnation in public, but no further action.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    so, until iran can establish military parity - in this instance mutually assured destruction - by attaining nuclear devices to counter the ongoing israeli threat, the nation of iran is vulnerable to israeli attack
    hell, we see israel rattling its sabers every day

    and notice what happens to nations like north korea and pakistan, after they acquire nuclear weapons. they become insulated from attack. the persians are smart. they recognize that reality, too
    MAD only works when the conventional military of both sides is strong enough to hold off the other side long enough for a nuclear launch to happen. This worked for the US and Russia because both sides have very powerful conventional forces. Iran does not have a strong enough conventional forces to prevent a nuclear weapon from destruction in the very first phase of an attack. The nuclear deterrence is nullified almost immediately.

    If we do things my way, sanctions may force Iran to negotiate sincerely and permit FULL IAEA inspections. In this case, not a shot is fired. This is the best scenario. OR, if Iran refuses to cooperate, strikes occur on nuclear facilities ONLY. The oil fields (Iran's primary source of income) are left intact. Civilian deaths occur, which is bad, but they are confined to the nuclear facilities. No civilian city centers are hit. Iran is humiliated but otherwise remains able to function as a nation.

    As it stands now, Obama and Netanyahu are trading blows over action against Iran. Obama has barely managed to keep Netanyahu at bay, and purely on the hopes that sanctions will work. Thus, Obama has been able to keep the peace. If we do things Justabubba's way and permit Iran to develop nuclear ICBMs, we have a 100% guarantee of hostility by Israel. Why would they? Because they know they can take out those nukes with a quick strike, and Iran would be helpless to stop it. Iran would be at their mercy.

    Remember that "mysterious explosion" at Iran's missile facility? Nothing showed up on radar, no enemy aircraft invaded Iran airspace. The missiles just "spontaneously" blew up. Guess what, JDAMs or cruise missiles can do exactly that. They don't show up on radar (JDAMs too small, cruise missiles fly under the radar). Iran's "nuclear deterrent" disappears in a flash, and nobody knows why...and least until Israeli aircraft come streaming in out of the sun prepared to dismantle the Iranian military. Israel has the weapons to do this. Israel hasn't attacked Iran, but letting Iran have nukes is a sure way to make it happen.

    In short, if we do things as they are, we have the possibility of No Conflict, or Limited Conflict. If we do things Justabubba's way the ultimate end result is: Maximum Conflict.

    Lastly, nuclear-armed nations have in fact, attacked one another directly. in 1999 (while both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons), Pakistan felt they could attack into Indian territory. They felt the concept of MAD would prevent a nuclear exchange, so then conventional attacks could happen without nuclear reprisal. Even with nukes, war happens anyway. Even then, the superior conventional military wins the day.

    Indo-Pakistani War of 1999 (minor war): Commonly known as Kargil War, this conflict between the two countries was mostly limited. Pakistani troops along with Kashmiri insurgents infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) and occupied Indian territory mostly in the Kargil district. The Pakistani government believed that its nuclear weapons would deter a full-scale escalation in conflict but India launched a major military campaign to flush out the infiltrators.[11] Due to Indian military advances and increasing foreign diplomatic pressure, Pakistan was forced to withdraw its forces back across the LoC.[5]
    Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by EagleAye; 02-24-12 at 04:44 PM.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  2. #342
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No one has attacked more countries in modern history than the USi
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    From the perspective of my lifetime, I would say the last 60 years.
    This is self serving

    Quote Originally Posted by MKULTRABOY View Post
    To be precise he could only be talking about the era in the US after which executive war powers were established and possibly some time before when the US had its first fledgling forays into imperialism in the early 20th C. He couldnt be talking about anything else, really /shrug


    guess we can wait for him to come back
    This is more in line if we are only talking about America. If we are discussing "Modern History" or Modern Era we could begin at the 16th century, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    And no one has saved more countries either.
    I agree with this. For starters, all I have to do is reach back and look at WWII.

  3. #343
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Directly? Iran has not. Indirectly, Iran has attacked many countries by supplying arms, support and cash. They are currently supplying arms to Syria so that Assad can kill off maybe 10,000 more civilians. Iran tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil. They are by no means, harmless. What more would they do if they thought as you do, that a nuclear weapon would protect them from any retaliation?
    Directly, or indirectly. Iran still doesn't come close to the US record of attacking other nations.



    Over Iran? They won't. Iran is not important enough to go to war over. If we were talking about Taiwan or maybe North Korea, you could be certain of a violent Chinese response. If we were talking about Georgia or Siberia, you could be certain of a violent Russian response. But not Iran. Not if they understood that no invasion was planned. I expect there are closed-door discussions with Russia and China over this very subject. If the US planned strikes on Iran, you could be sure we would privately inform both than we plan no invasion, and intend to keep the oil fields intact. This would result in tacit agreement from both in private, condemnation in public, but no further action.
    I am not prepared to support taking that risk over such an inconsequential threat to the US.

    US General Dempsey Says Premature To Attack Iran



    MAD only works when the conventional military of both sides is strong enough to hold off the other side long enough for a nuclear launch to happen. This worked for the US and Russia because both sides have very powerful conventional forces. Iran does not have a strong enough conventional forces to prevent a nuclear weapon from destruction in the very first phase of an attack. The nuclear deterrence is nullified almost immediately.
    Both China and Russia have such capability.

    If we do things my way, sanctions may force Iran to negotiate sincerely and permit FULL IAEA inspections. In this case, not a shot is fired. This is the best scenario. OR, if Iran refuses to cooperate, strikes occur on nuclear facilities ONLY. The oil fields (Iran's primary source of income) are left intact. Civilian deaths occur, which is bad, but they are confined to the nuclear facilities. No civilian city centers are hit. Iran is humiliated but otherwise remains able to function as a nation.
    As we found out with Iraq, sanctions have little effect on those at the top, but they do cause the general population to suffer. I fail to see what this accomplishes, other than more hate by the Iranian people of the US.

    As it stands now, Obama and Netanyahu are trading blows over action against Iran. Obama has barely managed to keep Netanyahu at bay, and purely on the hopes that sanctions will work. Thus, Obama has been able to keep the peace. If we do things Justabubba's way and permit Iran to develop nuclear ICBMs, we have a 100% guarantee of hostility by Israel. Why would they? Because they know they can take out those nukes with a quick strike, and Iran would be helpless to stop it. Iran would be at their mercy.
    Please keep in mind that this an exchange of personal opinions here and has no bearing on public policy. It is not likely that Obama is basing US policy on this forum.

    Remember that "mysterious explosion" at Iran's missile facility? Nothing showed up on radar, no enemy aircraft invaded Iran airspace. The missiles just "spontaneously" blew up. Guess what, JDAMs or cruise missiles can do exactly that. They don't show up on radar (JDAMs too small, cruise missiles fly under the radar). Iran's "nuclear deterrent" disappears in a flash, and nobody knows why...and least until Israeli aircraft come streaming in out of the sun prepared to dismantle the Iranian military. Israel has the weapons to do this. Israel hasn't attacked Iran, but letting Iran have nukes is a sure way to make it happen.
    From my reading, if not for US pressure, Israel would have struck Iran in the past on several different occasions, just as they have against Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.


    Lastly, nuclear-armed nations have in fact, attacked one another directly. in 1999 (while both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons), Pakistan felt they could attack into Indian territory. They felt the concept of MAD would prevent a nuclear exchange, so then conventional attacks could happen without nuclear reprisal. Even with nukes, war happens anyway. Even then, the superior conventional military wins the day.
    Sorry, there is little justification for starting a war over this, IMO.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #344
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    This is self serving



    This is more in line if we are only talking about America. If we are discussing "Modern History" or Modern Era we could begin at the 16th century, for example.



    I agree with this. For starters, all I have to do is reach back and look at WWII.
    Ok, I'll go along with the 20th century being the beginning of modern history of the US. Since we are comparing US aggression to Iranian aggression, it wouldn't make sense to call anything before the 20th century, modern history.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #345
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    US General Dempsey Says Premature To Attack Iran
    [...]
    From my reading, if not for US pressure, Israel would have struck Iran in the past on several different occasions, just as they have against Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.
    [...]
    Please keep in mind that this an exchange of personal opinions here and has no bearing on public policy. It is not likely that Obama is basing US policy on this forum.
    And I agree with Dempsey. An attack should NOT take place at this juncture. There's still a chance for a peaceful resolution. From my reading, Obama is working hard on Netanyahu to hold off on a strike on Iran, not because anyone's opinion here defines US policy, but because Obama thinks this is the right move. I agree with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Both China and Russia have such capability.
    Yes they do. And that's why MAD works for China and Russia. Iran does NOT have this capability, and that's why MAD will NOT work for them. In fact, they will see the exact opposite result, and encourage an attack, rather than dissuade an attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Sorry, there is little justification for starting a war over this, IMO.
    Some folks are thinking Obama is weak for not having attacked by now. Personally, I think Obama is considering this possibility of a wider conflict happening. He's trying to put his ducks in a row before taking definitive action. I think this means private discussions with China and Russia to insure nothing unexpected happens, and everyone understands clearly what US intentions are. These discussions will take time and they will not be easy discussions. Obama also wants to give ample time for diplomacy to work. It still might. I would prefer to see no attacks at all, but I understand that they may be necessary. Lets all cross our fingers.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    I thought this interview with Rudy Giuliani was interesting.

    (please lets not turn this into a Giuliani bashing, thank you.


  7. #347
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    02-24-12 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Military action against Iran 'likely'..
    hey... those companies who make all of the weapons, aircrafts, ships etc. need a war to make money. and they do have a lot of clout via lobbyists. Do you think that has something to do with wars waged? Yeah, they can make money in peacetime, but nothing makes money like a blown up tank that needs to be replaced. Or a blown up humvee, another one has to be manufactured, right? So their incentive for safety is not so much. It's a government created industry and they need blood. They really need it. How much stuff can a government buy if they had a 100 years of peace? The military industry would be like NASA. crying, on the outside looking in, begging for more money to fund new projects.

  8. #348
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    And I agree with Dempsey. An attack should NOT take place at this juncture. There's still a chance for a peaceful resolution. From my reading, Obama is working hard on Netanyahu to hold off on a strike on Iran, not because anyone's opinion here defines US policy, but because Obama thinks this is the right move. I agree with him.
    Me too!

    Yes they do. And that's why MAD works for China and Russia. Iran does NOT have this capability, and that's why MAD will NOT work for them. In fact, they will see the exact opposite result, and encourage an attack, rather than dissuade an attack.
    China and Russia are allies of Iran. Just as we are allies with Israel.


    Some folks are thinking Obama is weak for not having attacked by now. Personally, I think Obama is considering this possibility of a wider conflict happening. He's trying to put his ducks in a row before taking definitive action. I think this means private discussions with China and Russia to insure nothing unexpected happens, and everyone understands clearly what US intentions are. These discussions will take time and they will not be easy discussions. Obama also wants to give ample time for diplomacy to work. It still might. I would prefer to see no attacks at all, but I understand that they may be necessary. Lets all cross our fingers.
    I see no reason for the US to go to war with Iran unless they attack us, which I do not believe they will do.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #349
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    I thought this interview with Rudy Giuliani was interesting.

    (please lets not turn this into a Giuliani bashing, thank you.

    Not really surprised that you would.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #350
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Ok, I'll go along with the 20th century being the beginning of modern history of the US. Since we are comparing US aggression to Iranian aggression, it wouldn't make sense to call anything before the 20th century, modern history.
    I had not realized that this was a comparison, but, the beginnings of a negative discourse of the US and how "No one has attacked more countries in modern history than the US".

Page 35 of 80 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •