[xi_hyperon]

War-Gaming the Mullahs

Instead, administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran�by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level.

This has been discussed around here before, and some even like the idea. If this article is true, then it is being discussed by some in the administration as well. Idiocy aside, the obvious questions are: 1) With what army? Or do they plan to reinstate the draft? I think the reserves are about as stretched as they can be. 2) With what money? Or do they plan to continue to borrow funds from other countries?

Regardless, I think it is a moot issue. It is too late, and we spent all of our resources digging in the sand for weapons and weapon programs that weren't there.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
1) With what army? Or do they plan to reinstate the draft? I think the reserves are about as stretched as they can be. 2) With what money? Or do they plan to continue to borrow funds from other countries?

3) how in the hell is anybody going to justify an invasion of iran, if convincing people of even the slightest justification for the invasion of iraq took that many lies and spins?

never going to happen.

otoh, i would really hope for a regime change in iran. iranians are great people...i'm sure one day they'll pull through.

[Nicko]

methinks those neocons are playing too much

[Solomon Grundy]

The thing is Iran actually has a functioning military so it wouldn't be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Logic]

And interestingly they have one of the most developed democracies in the M.E.

[PacHead]

This has my full support, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

In other related news:

Israel to get 5,000 smart bombs (to use on dumb people), and bunker busters from the USA !

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...tegoryname=USA

[deedar]

What the hell guys ... Why don't we just drop the big one now???

Courtesy of Randy Newman:

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

[swrate]

Originally posted by PacHead:
This has my full support, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

In other related news:

Israel to get 5,000 smart bombs (to use on dumb people), and bunker busters from the USA !

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...tegoryname=USA

weapons,
good for US business right Pachead, are you trying to say Israel may use bombs on dumb people?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
The thing is Iran actually has a functioning military so it wouldn't be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Air superiority. Once that is established, it is a differnt story. As I mentioned before, Shock and Awe was little more than a fireworls display. A conflict with Iran would probably be easier considering it would be much more of a convential war against a disciplined opponent.

[RAILhead]

Some of you may be too young to remember the Iran crap we went through back in the day, but someone (I'm not sure who) made a little song named "Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys (and some of you may be too young to remember them). Anyway, it's come to mind several times, and here are the words...

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB IRAN!
Let's take a stand, bomb Iran.
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks.
Tell the Ayatollah..."Gonna put you in a box!"
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Ol' Uncle Sam's gettin' pretty hot.
Time to turn Iran into a parking lot. Bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers;
Call the financiers, better get their ass in gear.
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Call on our allies to cut off their supplies,
Get our hands untied, and bring em' back alive. Bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB IRAN!
Let's take a stand, bomb Iran.
Our people you been stealin'
Now it's time for keelin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel to get 5,000 smart bombs (to use on dumb people)

good, somebody needs to drop the bomb on sharon.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Air superiority. Once that is established, it is a differnt story. As I mentioned before, Shock and Awe was little more than a fireworls display. A conflict with Iran would probably be easier considering it would be much more of a convential war against a disciplined opponent.

air superiority is possibly THE most vital thing to gain. And although they are a trained army as has been demonstrated before the air superiority issue is a non issue with our "enemies" in the M.E.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
good, somebody needs to drop the bomb on sharon.

wtf you talking about? he IS a bomb. I'd like to see you survive if he fell on you!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Splinter:
wtf you talking about? he IS a bomb. I'd like to see you survive if he fell on you!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Splinter:
air superiority is possibly THE most vital thing to gain. And although they are a trained army as has been demonstrated before the air superiority issue is a non issue with our "enemies" in the M.E.

Not if the liberal self haters would take the handcuffs off the military. This is war, not a humanitarian mission. People die, bombs fall. Do you think Falujah would still exist if this were WWII?

[Logic]

I hope those of you willing to bomb other nations and accept civilian casualties will accept the next attack on the US as "just a part of a war". I pity the innocent Americans that will die because of your lust for blood.....

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Not if the liberal self haters would take the handcuffs off the military. This is war, not a humanitarian mission. People die, bombs fall. Do you think Falujah would still exist if this were WWII?

Military without handcuffs = terrorists

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Air superiority. Once that is established, it is a differnt story. As I mentioned before, Shock and Awe was little more than a fireworls display. A conflict with Iran would probably be easier considering it would be much more of a convential war against a disciplined opponent.

Ummm they actually have a pretty good airforce, I doubt it would be a cakewalk.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Israel to get 5,000 smart bombs (to use on dumb people)

Ah you better watch out then, PacHead.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Ummm they actually have a pretty good airforce, I doubt it would be a cakewalk.

depends if thiers is anything like syria/jordan/egypts

the experience with those has been less then impressive.

[dcolton]

Heh...you guys don't get it. Iran's airforce wouldn't make it much past the first phase. They would have to bring everything they got to destroy the missles coming from land and sea. We have Iraq. We own the sea. Half the Iranian air force would be eleminated before a US fighter left the ground (from air and sea).

Good luck!

(we aren't going to war with Iran and I don't want a war with Iran...but we would still kick their ass )

[voodoo]

I'd be surprised if the Iranian air force could stand up to their US counterpart. If they could I'd fire all my generals were I George Bush. Actually I'd withdraw from the presidential campaign today were I GWB and ask the people on Earth to forgive me for being an ass

[MATTRESS]

I say drop enough nukes to turn the Middle East into the Middle Ocean.

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I say drop enough nukes to turn the Middle East into the Middle Ocean.

Go home retard

[MATTRESS]

No.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Ummm they actually have a pretty good airforce, I doubt it would be a cakewalk.

You are living in a dream world.

Militarily wise, most muslim/arab (yeah Iran isn't arab, I know) countries are a total joke. They have neither the training or the expertise or the leadership and are lacking in every thinkable way.

Like I stated before, I doubt anything is going to happen anytime soon, but the USA could destroy Iran in no time, if we felt like it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Ummm they actually have a pretty good airforce, I doubt it would be a cakewalk.

You're right, it took about 100 hours for the US to neutralize the 4th largest military in the world back in 1991.

So, I could see how it might take as long as 15 or 20 minutes to eliminate a 'pretty good' airforce.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You're right, it took about 100 hours for the US to neutralize the 4th largest military in the world back in 1991.

So, I could see how it might take as long as 15 or 20 minutes to eliminate a 'pretty good' airforce.

Actually it would be much more difficult to defeat Iran than Iraq. Iraq had no airforce to speak of, and Saddam Hussein was in 1991 not eager to have the US as an enemy, he somehow thought he could appease the US by withdrawing from Kuwait and signing a few contracts, one of them the non-proliferation-aggreement. Remember, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after the US-ambassador in Iraq told him the US would not interfere in inner-arabic affairs, and that idiot believed it.

George W. Bush Senior also was not eager to invade Bagdad and topple Saddam Hussein, not only because of the possible chaos that would come out of it, and the expensive after-work, but also because it could be a very dangerous war with a probable high death-toll-rate for the US-soldiers considering all the rockets and chemical and biological weapons he would use against the US-army that would try to invade Bagdad.

George W. Bush junior dared to invade Bagdad because he was sure that the 12 years embargo and inspections have destroyed all usable WMD's in Iraq and torn the iraqi-army in general.

So what would Iran do in the case of the US invading Iran, with all the airforce and ballistic long-range- and short-range-rockets, and with its sufficient chemical and biological weapons? It would probably fire its rockets onto the US-military-bases in Iraq and Qatar, and onto the US-ships in the Gulf. The iranian military airplanes would drop bombs onto the nearing groundsoldiers in their tanks, humvees and helicopters, while the jets are trying to counter the US-airforce.

If nothing helps and the US-army is still nearing Teheran, which I doubt since the iranian population wouldn't allow the US-army to pass through without severe resistance, so that the US-army would have to kill a lot of civilians on the way to Teheran, and maybe even drop a few MOAB's on all iranian towns it passes.

Chemical weapons would be used against the US-army on about half the way from the Iraq-Iran-border to Teheran, and should the US-army still be able to reach Teheran, the iranian-governement would probably send out secret-agents to infiltrate the US with a nuke or at least a bomb with radioactive material to detonate in Washington, DC.

The war would then be over and the US would have successfully invaded Iran, eventhough the death-toll among the US-army as well as at home in Washington would be very high.

That was the best-case-scenario for the US.

Taliesin

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually it would be much more difficult to defeat Iran than Iraq. Iraq had no airforce to speak of, and Saddam Hussein was in 1991 not eager to have the US as an enemy, he somehow thought he could appease the US by withdrawing from Kuwait and signing a few contracts, one of them the non-proliferation-aggreement. Remember, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after the US-ambassador in Iraq told him the US would not interfere in inner-arabic affairs, and that idiot believed it.

George W. Bush Senior also was not eager to invade Bagdad and topple Saddam Hussein, not only because of the possible chaos that would come out of it, and the expensive after-work, but also because it could be a very dangerous war with a probable high death-toll-rate for the US-soldiers considering all the rockets and chemical and biological weapons he would use against the US-army that would try to invade Bagdad.

George W. Bush junior dared to invade Bagdad because he was sure that the 12 years embargo and inspections have destroyed all usable WMD's in Iraq and torn the iraqi-army in general.

So what would Iran do in the case of the US invading Iran, with all the airforce and ballistic long-range- and short-range-rockets, and with its sufficient chemical and biological weapons? It would probably fire its rockets onto the US-military-bases in Iraq and Qatar, and onto the US-ships in the Gulf. The iranian military airplanes would drop bombs onto the nearing groundsoldiers in their tanks, humvees and helicopters, while the jets are trying to counter the US-airforce.

If nothing helps and the US-army is still nearing Teheran, which I doubt since the iranian population wouldn't allow the US-army to pass through without severe resistance, so that the US-army would have to kill a lot of civilians on the way to Teheran, and maybe even drop a few MOAB's on all iranian towns it passes.

Chemical weapons would be used against the US-army on about half the way from the Iraq-Iran-border to Teheran, and should the US-army still be able to reach Teheran, the iranian-governement would probably send out secret-agents to infiltrate the US with a nuke or at least a bomb with radioactive material to detonate in Washington, DC.

The war would then be over and the US would have successfully invaded Iran, eventhough the death-toll among the US-army as well as at home in Washington would be very high.

That was the best-case-scenario for the US.

Taliesin

hmmm Im not sure it would be difficult to that degree but if there is one army in this area to be wary of it would diffinetly be Irans. no qualms about that.

[lil'babykitten]

It's pretty clear that the US will never invade a country that could actually fight back.

[MATTRESS]

You're sadly mistaken if you really believe that.

[xi_hyperon]

Interesting that real answers are avoided here and substituted with the typical "who has the bigger guns" bravado crap. No one has bothered to answer the actual questions in a rational, objective manner, or at all for that matter.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
War-Gaming the Mullahs

This has been discussed around here before, and some even like the idea. If this article is true, then it is being discussed by some in the administration as well. Idiocy aside, the obvious questions are: 1) With what army? Or do they plan to reinstate the draft? I think the reserves are about as stretched as they can be. 2) With what money? Or do they plan to continue to borrow funds from other countries?

Regardless, I think it is a moot issue. It is too late, and we spent all of our resources digging in the sand for weapons and weapon programs that weren't there.

1. The US Army. You think we have all of those troops in the area for nothing? We could easily add another couple hundred thousand, if needed, in a short amount of time. Not all of our troops went to Iraq...

The draft can be called up at any time, but the only ones that really need to worry are guy age 18-24.

Like I said above, there are many more active troops that we can use.... They used reserves because they need some training too

2. The same money that is used for everything else. When you control the majority of the worlds money, you can do whatever and spend non existant money.

You do forget that this would not happen until Nov(?) when the issue goes in front of the UN security council. Oh and after Bush gets re-elected as well.

[UNTeMac]

It's truly to frightening to see how many of you are so eager to preemptively attack a country. Where does this bully mentality come from?

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
It's truly to frightening to see how many of you are so eager to preemptively attack a country. Where does this bully mentality come from?

Turning the other cheek one too many times.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
It's truly to frightening to see how many of you are so eager to preemptively attack a country. Where does this bully mentality come from?

9/11. Nick Berg and the other poor souls who have died in the name of extremism. Chechnya. USS Cole. Countless attacks against innocent Jews in Israel. Pro-Terrorist rhetoric from 'Islamic Nations'.

The thought of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a government with questionable honor.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
9/11. Nick Berg and the other poor soles who have died in the name of extremism. Chechnya. USS Cole. Countless attacks against innocent Jews in Israel. Pro-Terrorist rhetoric from 'Islamic Nations'.

The thought of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a government with questionable honor.

I'm sorry, I have to say it... "SOULS"

Ok, that's out of my system. Neither Iran nor Muslims committed the 9/11 attacks. They were part of a small, fanatic movement that exists throughout the world. If we go in, we're doing them a favor in confirming their crusade propaganda.

And since when do we go to war on a "thought" instead of facts? Oh right, March 2003.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I'm sorry, I have to say it... "SOULS"

LOL...no apology needed.

Ok, that's out of my system. Neither Iran nor Muslims committed the 9/11 attacks. They were part of a small, fanatic movement that exists throughout the world. If we go in, we're doing them a favor in confirming their crusade propaganda.

And since when do we go to war on a "thought" instead of facts? Oh right, March 2003.

Honestly, I would rather see an all out war than continuing what is going on now. These radicals are not going away...and regretfully, the ones who could and should be most proactive in ending terrorism are ignoring it (Islamic nations, the muslim community, etc.)

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
LOL...no apology needed.



Honestly, I would rather see an all out war than continuing what is going on now. These radicals are not going away...and regretfully, the ones who could and should be most proactive in ending terrorism are ignoring it (Islamic nations, the muslim community, etc.)

But all-out war on who? With what evidence? How sure can we be that we're not attacking the wrong places, taking innocent lives?

"All-out" war is only possible when you have a tightly defined target with which there is no question whatsoever of threat and/or blame. We used to be cautious about going to war and using force and that's a good thing for the most powerful country in the world. We're too easy to hate if we start throwing our weight around and when that happens, we make things worse.

I know it's really hard to live together with the other 5.5 billion on the planet when you have the biggest guns but it's absolutely necessary if we as a people are going to survive.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nick Berg and the other poor souls who have died in the name of extremism.

You find it strange to see causalities in a war!? Remember this is how your nation treat them..

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by djohnson:
1. The US Army. You think we have all of those troops in the area for nothing? We could easily add another couple hundred thousand, if needed, in a short amount of time. Not all of our troops went to Iraq...

The draft can be called up at any time, but the only ones that really need to worry are guy age 18-24.

Like I said above, there are many more active troops that we can use.... They used reserves because they need some training too

2. The same money that is used for everything else. When you control the majority of the worlds money, you can do whatever and spend non existant money.

You do forget that this would not happen until Nov(?) when the issue goes in front of the UN security council. Oh and after Bush gets re-elected as well.

1. We have all those troops in the area because they're busy trying to fight off insurgents in a war we are slowly losing. Your statement that we can "easily add another couple hundred thousand, if needed, in a short amount of time" is just plain wrong. Just because we have lots of people in the military, that doesn't mean they're all fighters. More of them are actually support personnel than actual combat personnel. You obviously don't follow up on what's been on the news lately, Fox or otherwise; our military is much smaller today than it was ten years ago. Your statement that they used reserves because they need some training too is incredible. Do you honestly believe that they would send untrained troops into combat, to train them? The draft cannot be called up at any time; you obviously haven't followed this issue either. It's been rumored for some time that the draft was going to be reinstated, and, in order to do that, a new bill would have to be presented to Congress, and the president would have to sign it. If that happened, it would take enormous logistics to start the draft again, and people would have to trained, equipment would have to be purchased, etc. This would take many months, if not years, to implement. Not gonna help in the ME in the immediate future. Even if, in some wild stretch of the imagination, this did happen, and the war expanded, I doubt it would then be limited to 18-24 year old men.

2. We don't control the majority of the world's money by any stretch of the imagination. Government money goes through a process of allocation; somebody doesn't just make phone call and say, "I need a few billion dollars to fight this war." Congress has to authorize large funds, and I'd be willing to bet, given that approximately 50% of the people are against this war, they'd be so ready to just give Dubya another few billion. You can't spend "non existant money." Some day, somehow, it has to be payed back, just like your credit card.

3. There are a lot of tough talking people here, when it comes to armchair quarterbacking with other people's lives.

[Joshua]

Barack Obama, bright shining star of the Democratic party, future Illinois senator, and keynote speaker from the Democratic convention, supports missile strikes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons:

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

Full article here.

[OldManMac]

From what you've posted, it sounds to me that he would consider that as a last possibility The way I read your statement at the beginning of your post, and the way he's quoted, are two different positions. There's a big difference between full support and a last option possibility.

Also, the article requires registration.

[Anders]

Dude. You clearly haven�t followed the presidential campaign lately. If you say or do anything that speculates about the possibility of attacking another country, no matter how many "ifs" you put into it, you have given the full backup to the president to unleash hell on that country. And if didn�t do then you are a terrorist or supporter of them and will be killed and/or not allowed to fly. You are either with or against the president in his war against terrorism.

Interesting that real answers are avoided here and substituted with the typical "who has the bigger guns" bravado crap. No one has bothered to answer the actual questions in a rational, objective manner, or at all for that matter.

The question of why doesn�t really matter anymore. Or rather we have the CIA to come up with the whys. And if they won�t we just make our own little brainstorm group and have them come up with that.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
From what you've posted, it sounds to me that he would consider that as a last possibility The way I read your statement at the beginning of your post, and the way he's quoted, are two different positions. There's a big difference between full support and a last option possibility.

Also, the article requires registration.

Last option ? More like the most likely option.

Iran = terrorist supporters/financers/enablers, liars, cheats and fanatical islamics.

I suppose we'll have to go through the same cat & mouse game with them for a little bit, but it is certainly not going to turn into any 12 year fiasco/waste of time, like with Saddam. We'll probably end up bombing them way before that. It's good to know obama the dem already supports this action.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
I hope those of you willing to bomb other nations and accept civilian casualties will accept the next attack on the US as "just a part of a war". I pity the innocent Americans that will die because of your lust for blood.....

We accepted the last attacks on the US as a part of war. The difference now is that we are fighting back.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
It's truly to frightening to see how many of you are so eager to preemptively attack a country. Where does this bully mentality come from?

Iran has been funding the insurgency in Iraq since Saddam's fall.

[Wiskedjak]

Apparently, Iran doesn't need the US to save it:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=229548

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Iran = terrorist supporters/financers/enablers, liars, cheats and fanatical islamics.

What's an islamic?

Do you want to suggest that the US should also bomb the USA? Cause everything you have accused Iran to be definetly also fits on the USA.

I wouldn't trust the USA with its nukes either, they even have used them against a country that doesn't have nukes, and have helped another country (Israel) in getting the nukes with France as a strawman, and supplying Israel with the ingredients to build more nukes every year.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

Who sold the USA its nukes?


nobody?

hmm.

So what you're trying to say is that other nations don't have the intelligence and know-how to make their own nukes?

I sorta figured as much.