Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

  1. #31
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Im guessing the US military is STILL in the area because they are planning to blow the hell out of Iran sometime in the future

    If Iran decides to go for nuclear weapons, the US may not be able to permanently stop this from happening unless it is willing to occupy the country.
    This is the candid conclusion of one US general testifying in front of the Senate but one that seems to have gone mostly unnoticed amid a flurry of statements on Iran over the past few days in Washington.
    Gen James Cartwright, one of America's top uniformed officers, slowly edged towards that conclusion during a Senate testimony last week, underscoring the difficult choices facing the Obama administration as it weighs what do about Iran.

    Gen Cartwright agreed a military strike would only delay Iran


    Since the US would probably be extremely apprehensive about even considering putting boots on the ground in Iran, the statement raises a key question - while the Obama administration publicly maintains that it will not allow Iran's current leaders to acquire nuclear weapons, is it privately discussing how to live with a nuclear Iran?
    The military is averse to any action against Iran and Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a military strike would be 'his last option" and has warned of the unintended consequences of such a strike.
    One of those consequences could be a boost in the life expentancy of the Iranian leadership.
    If Iran comes under attack from the outside, Iranians will likely rally around their leaders or be forced to do so.
    This would put an end to any internal dissent and delay the prospect of internal pressure for change. After all, a different Iranian leadership that cooperates more with the international community is another way of allaying concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions.
    But during the Senate testimony, which also featured the state department's No 3 official, William Burns, the senators questioning the panel also established that UN sanctions would probably not be tough enough to really have an impact on Tehran.

    BBC News - US weighs Iran military option
    If we had to invade a Middle Eastern country under false pretenses, why not Iran?

    Only being half serious.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 04-23-10 at 12:37 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  2. #32
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    We Bomb them to hell and then deport all of out illgeal mexicans there. Actually, not the attractive ones. We keep the attractive illegal mexicans here.

    So we bomb them into the stone age, give them horses, cows, plant a few hot peppers and citrus trees along with agave.... deport all the marginally attractive and under illegal mexicans there..... 2 birds... one bomb

    Youre welcome
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  3. #33
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Its quite possible to simply obliterate nuclear and or rocket facilities from the air leaving the rest of the country untouched. If we announced the attacks ahead of time, we could probably avoid any collateral damage. The Iran would certainly retaliate for such an action, it would result in a lot less money and lives wasted. Obtaining air supremacy, eliminating air defenses and destroying hardened targets is fairly trivial. We could easily do it every few years if required and it would still be far cheaper than a full scale invasion and occupation.
    Actually, obtaining air supremacy, eliminating integrated air defenses and destroying multiple hardened targets is a huge undertaking that comes with many risks and is nothing near trivial.

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No, that would be the last administration, from who's ineptitude we continue to dig our way out from.
    link?

    LOL!

    Russia says Iran reactor on track for August launch | Reuters

    New sanctions on Iran are only path left: Gates | Reuters

    China rules out new U.N. sanctions on Iran for now | Reuters

    Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran | World | Reuters

    No effective policy on Iran, Gates says

    when is barry gonna meet with the leaders of iran---without preconditions?

    LOL!

    the most incompetent foreign policy america has ever had to endure

  5. #35
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Actually, obtaining air supremacy, eliminating integrated air defenses and destroying multiple hardened targets is a huge undertaking that comes with many risks and is nothing near trivial.
    Compared to full scale invasion, it is quite trivial. The Iranian air force and air defense systems are both small in number and relatively out of date. No military operation is entirely without risk, but the odds are heavily stacked in our favor. The military had some foresight in the matter, and has purchased some serious bunker-busting munitions probably for this exact purpose. Air strikes would be far cheaper and safer than even the smallest ground-based attack.

  6. #36
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Prof:

    Obama is screwing the pooch, agreed. That doesn't mean Bush did much better. Without much left over from the Iraq fight, he basically handed this issue off to the Europeans, who assured us that their smarter more sophisticated "soft power" would prove far more effective than the blunt imperialistic US military.



    Rathi is correct; we have sufficient resources in the region all we would really need to do is protect Iraq from sudden counterattack. Don't forget, also, that we have Iran surrounded; being in Iraq (to her west), Afghanistan (to her north), Pakistan (to her East), and the sea (to her south).

  7. #37
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the target will be Israel. Israel has nukes on subs. Israeli subs will retaliate. you really think the deaths will be limited to 15 or 20 million people? we're talking about the potential glassing of significant chunks of optimism showing through. the entire region.
    Sorry... just my natural optimism showing through.

    Of course another scenario would be for Iran to put a warhead on a Scud, put the Scud on a freighter, and launch just off the East coast of the US with detonation set for max altitude….. That would only kill around 15 to 20 million over the next 4 to 5 months, 80 to 150 million over a year.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  8. #38
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that to some people in this forum, an innocent Iranian woman or childrens life, has less value than an American woman or childrens life.
    Actually, I'm putting the survival of MY country above the survival of a rogue, terrorist regime.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #39
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Part of being a member of a nation is believing by virtue of that relationship you are worth more than human beings elsewhere.



    That would stop Iran from getting the nuke, but it would not help our terrorist problem.
    The longest journeys start with but a singe step.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  10. #40
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: BBC: US weighs Iran military option

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    We can handle the Iranian military, but at this time America simply lacks the resources necessary to occupy Iran.
    We can thank Bush and Obama for that.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •