RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea

RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/7/2007 11:40:06 PM)
Micheal, I am curious. You have said on other threads that you understand how Saddam was going to break the US dollar by busting the oil Bourse. And you understood that it would destroy the dollar. If that had happened, what would the effects have been on the USA? In your opinion?

Dtesmoac -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 6:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So you are saying that if we attack Iran that China and Russia will declare war or help the Iranians? I doubt it. Selling of weapons to Iran is now illegal under Security Council resolution that both China and Russia agreed to and voted for. So I really don't know what you are trying to say is going to happen here. I mean if Russia and China were both obsessed in protecting Iran, why would they vote to suspend weapons sales to Tehran? - If the US were to attack Iran wouldn't that be illegal under international law and therefore China and Russia would be able to supply them with weapons for self defence purposes.....!!!

Dtesmoac -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 6:58:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Rich, Afghanistan was a brilliant idea and if we had spent 1/10 of what we have wasted in Iraq there, Al Queda would now be a footnote in history. Spot on Michael.................the point that history will see as the most significant part of Bush's presidancy.

caitlyn -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 7:31:18 AM)
We discussed this topic in PoliSci, and got a tongue lashing from our hyper-liberal prof. He is very big into seeing things as they are, not as we would see them ... meaning, you can't let your personal feelings about something, alter reality. Trust me, this prof., is about as anti-war as anyone you will find, and many anti-war students try to do the shameless suck up thing to garner favor. I tend to be super quiet when not behind the safety of the computer (believe it or not) so rarely get involved in the sucking up process. [;)] I digress ... the basic thought from the students was that Iran would be a larger Iraq scenario, where we "could" win the early war militarily, but winning the peace afterwards would be even harder than it was in Iraq, because the population is so much larger. Our prof., listened to the banter (right up until two hard right people started discussing tactical nukes) ... then ended the conversation, by telling us all we were guilty of letting our feelings, alter facts. His point ... Iraq was no match for the United States, militarily. Iran is even less of a match, primarily due to position, terrain, being surrounded, and a few new weapon systems the United States has put online in the last few years. Winning the peace in Iraq is difficult, because we have a very foolish goal, and Iran next door, bent on seeing that goal fail. Iran would be different, because we probably wouldn't have that goal, and Iran doesn't have Iran next to it. His thinking is that we would go in (he firmly believes that the decision to attack Iran has already been made), destroy the Iranian military, destroy the Iranian nuke program, boot out the government ... and leave. He thinks this is very foolish, and so do I ... but his point is, using the difficulties in Iraq and projecting them over to Iran, and poor thinking.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 8:37:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I digress ... the basic thought from the students was that Iran would be a larger Iraq scenario, where we "could" win the early war militarily, but winning the peace afterwards would be even harder than it was in Iraq, because the population is so much larger. Our prof., listened to the banter (right up until two hard right people started discussing tactical nukes) ... then ended the conversation, by telling us all we were guilty of letting our feelings, alter facts. His point ... Iraq was no match for the United States, militarily. Iran is even less of a match, primarily due to position, terrain, being surrounded, and a few new weapon systems the United States has put online in the last few years. Winning the peace in Iraq is difficult, because we have a very foolish goal, and Iran next door, bent on seeing that goal fail. Iran would be different, because we probably wouldn't have that goal, and Iran doesn't have Iran next to it. His thinking is that we would go in (he firmly believes that the decision to attack Iran has already been made), destroy the Iranian military, destroy the Iranian nuke program, boot out the government ... and leave. He thinks this is very foolish, and so do I ... but his point is, using the difficulties in Iraq and projecting them over to Iran, and poor thinking. I've got to agree. The USA could win almost any military war but at the moment it hasn't got the political imagination to go with the hardware to win the peace, even if peace could be won. One thinks of that 60s slogan 'fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity'. I'm sure there will be an attack on Iran, if only initially limited to its nuclear programme. Attacking Iranian military will just be a side issue because the Iranians won't enter into a military war with the US, they will go for atsymetrical warfare and after the US has attacked them, there will be a lot of countries willing to help Iran, even if only covertly. My guess there will be a lot of terrorism against American soft targets because that is all they can be sure of hitting. I'm supposing diplomacy is asking too much of this administration, it just hasn't got the imagination.

Dtesmoac -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 1:27:03 PM)
Was anyone in the discusion concerned about destabalising the next country along - Pakistan....which already has nukes, and is pretty un stable? I don't think anyone contests that the US can militarily win any immediate war, it is the ability to win a protracted war or an ongoing series of escalating local conflicts that the US may have problems with. A US general recently pointed out that if a US plane costs 20 times a Chinese one and is superior in combat by a factor of 1 to 10, the Chinese still only need to spend half the money and be prepared to take unlimtied casualties to neutralise the US military threat. (it was in one of the weekly / monthly news type magazines I was reading in Borders) - seemed an interesting view point. The whole thrust of his argument was about conflicts being won by the side that refused to be defeated rather than the one that succeded on the battle field - interesting concept.

Sinergy -> RE: Why Iran is a very very bad idea (4/8/2007 4:28:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Was anyone in the discusion concerned about destabalising the next country along - Pakistan....which already has nukes, and is pretty un stable? The Muslim country Pakistan is not all that unstable. They possess nukes. They put up with the United States. All of their nukes, and for that matter, all of their military was designed to protect themselves from / attack India. quote: I don't think anyone contests that the US can militarily win any immediate war, it is the ability to win a protracted war or an ongoing series of escalating local conflicts that the US may have problems with. That was the problem the current administration had. They considered going to war to be some sort of "capture the flag" type game. But this is not the way that modern warfare plays out. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125