It's just about time to start hammering Iran

[ScutMonkey]

Between this and Iran's burgeoning nuclear program, which they've already admitted to, it's time to consider Iran the next target.

[ScutMonkey]

It's just about time to start hammering Iran

[Overkill]

Uh, huh. You want to get into a whole heap of Sh*t you just go ahead. Leave us out of it this time. Iran is the most powerful Islamic nation, has a huge, well trained,  loyal army, and is the nominal head of the Shiite Islamic world, thus any invasion would suck in just about everybody.

They also have more than a few grudges to settle with the West.

So, over to you pardners.  

[ric]

Come on...lets rekindle the spirit of adventure you had abroad

[VorLonUK]

LOL,

Quote
It's just about time to start hammering Iran

You can barely contain the one you already started in the country you invaded, talk about jack of all trades and masters of none...

*shakes head in disbelief* - but knows somewhere Scut has got a sense of humour and is as we speak, exercising Yankee humour.

[Lord Raiden]

Actually, the US is hiring Earth Fleet for this invasion.  Heck, we've got all these troops and all this firepower sitting around with nothing to do.  So hey, let's at least have us some fun using it.

Or we can save using the troops and just use the orbital death rays and vaporize the whole country with a click of the "vaporize it" button.      Yeah, yeah.  I'm being silly here.  But seriously, I doubt the US is gonna bother.  We won't invade NK because we'd piss off china and end up starting a nuclear war.  We won't invade Iran because we'll piss off the entire muslim world, including our semi-friendly allies, plus Opec, plus the other nato countries, plus every single country in the UN, and that's just for starters.  You think Nazi Germany got its butt creamed in WW2?  Dude, the butt whipping we'd get for attacking Iran would put to shame anything we did to the Nazi's 10 times over.  IE the US would be flat out wiped off the map.  So no, we're not stupid or crazy enough to invade.  Well, not yet anyways.  

I have a feeling that if we DO plan to go over there, we'll find a plan to get the whole world royally pissed off at them, THEN we'll say "let's go beat them up!"  Everyone will rally behind us, we'll stomp Iran into the ground and everyone will cheer.  That is the only way to do it.  Bush did it the wrong way.  The way to do it is to sucker your neighbors into joining you in the maylay.  *cough*desert storm*cough*

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Between this and Iran's burgeoning nuclear program, which they've already admitted to, it's time to consider Iran the next target.

Well, if they want to be a nuclear power, perhaps we should treat them as one.

A fully loaded Ohio class SSBN should get the point across.

[Mefistofeles]

Unlike the gun control debate I have to side with the Brits on this topic.

We are hostile to Iran and have 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Image if they had 150,000 troops in Mexico do you think we would be happy?   Screwing with Iran is a very bad idea.   They've had over a decade to build a proper military that can give the US a run for its money.  

Besides we allow terrorist (the Iranian Mujadeen) to use Iraqi territory to launch attacks into Iran. Talk about a bad neighbor policy.

At the very least we should initiate some sort of cross border agreement with Iran.    Our activities are only provoking the Iranians.

   

[Overkill]

Quote
...lets rekindle the spirit of adventure you had abroad

That worked fine when we had the biggest, most powerful navy, in the world bar none, an economy well ahead of everybody else and ready for new imports, and a military that had proved itself on every battlefield in the World (only losing once to a gang of traitors). Add to that the weakness of our opponents in the "New World", Middle East & Far East, the admirable British use of sneakiness, and it's no wonder we were so willing and able to pinch a large chunk of the globe!!

Nowadays sadly, everybody knows who the English are before they arrive............. and they're ready with guns!!!

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
Unlike the gun control debate I have to side with the Brits on this topic.

We are hostile to Iran and have 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Image if they had 150,000 troops in Mexico do you think we would be happy?   Screwing with Iran is a very bad idea.   They've had over a decade to build a proper military that can give the US a run for its money.  

Not to get cocky, but we heard the same thing in 1991 with Iraq and we rolled over them without much effort because of our technology.  Honestly, with our force spread as thin as they are and the murky political waters we're in, I don't ever see it happening even if it should.  

If we really wanted to do this we could just unleash Israel.  It would bring the entire Middle East region into the situation, but I have to wonder if one big war and subsequent democratic rebuilding process wouldn't be worth it if we could avoid another 100-200 years of terrorism from that region.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
LOL,

Quote
It's just about time to start hammering Iran

You can barely contain the one you already started in the country you invaded, talk about jack of all trades and masters of none...  

A large part of the reason why we "can't contain" the one we have is because of Iran.  The people of Iran are NOT happy with their own regime and we will have to wait out their ability to overthrow it, but that doesn't mean I like that wait.  In the end it's probably better for their own self esteem if the Iranians do it themselves, but man is it going to take a long time.

Quote
*shakes head in disbelief* - but knows somewhere Scut has got a sense of humour and is as we speak, exercising Yankee humour.

Somewhat.  It would be nice if a quick little war would solve all these problems, but I'm not that dense.  The biggest problem in all of these situations is fundamentalism and we're not going to solve that one over night.

[Lord Raiden]

Ya know, as much as I'm against nuclear weapons, a glass floored parking lot foreign policy over there is starting to look better by the day.

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Originally posted by: Lord Raiden
Ya know, as much as I'm against nuclear weapons, a glass floored parking lot foreign policy over there is starting to look better by the day.

It's nice to know (just like Scut) that you LR have a sense of humour as well ... and they say Yankees don't have a sense of humour, how wrong could they be?

[Overkill]

Quote
Not to get cocky, but we heard the same thing in 1991 with Iraq and we rolled over them without much effort because of our technology.

See comment in above post about loyalty. The Iranians are a different prospect altogether to Iraq.  

The stuff about Iranians wanting to get rid of their regime is Western propaganda. We know some Persians (they resent being called "Iranians") who fled the Aytollahs boys back in the 80's. They have no love (at all) for Tehran, but even they sadly dismiss talk of impending revolt, or even unrest as BS being served up by ex-pats and internal sources who are saying what we want to hear. Their own families back home may not like, and there's a big difference between "not like" and unrest, the fundamentalist regime, but they would back it happily if the tanks rolled in...............  

[Zut50]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Between this and Iran's burgeoning nuclear program, which they've already admitted to, it's time to consider Iran the next target.

Its a good thing you are the sole judge of truth for mankind Scut, or people might think it was wrong for the US go around invading sovereign nations for no reason! What a ridiculous thought

[Babar]

Mostly agree with Overkill's comments.

Iran will not be an easy challenge. For starters do you think they have forgiven us for supplying Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons that he used to kill so many of their countrymen during the Iran-Iraq war? I highly doubt it. Nor do I think they have forgotten that we "accidentally" shot down one of their civilian planes in 1988, killing hundreds of people.

Furthermore, with oil prices as high as they are now, do you think Tehran is having any problems acquiring sufficient revenue to feed its weapons development programs? Iran has sufficient revenues that it is actually funding North Korean development of missiles (in exchange for the sharing of technology, of course).

Keep in mind a very significant obstacle to invading Iran: access to the Persian Gulf. Iraq had literally no naval presence whatsoever. This is not true of Iran as they have land-based antiship missiles, submarines and fast attack boats courtesy of Russia and China. Now, it is granted that their equipment is not really a match for our navy, but they have enough of a presence to make it ugly for us if we were to attempt to gain a foothold on their shores.

I also don't think I need to mention that Iran has a substantially better air force than Saddam Hussein ever did. For instance, the F-14a Tomcat was only given to one foreign air service, that of Iran. They also possess MiG-29s and SU-24s. Again, the United States possesses superior equipment, but yet again, it would be ugly to try and clean their clocks like we so easily did twice with Iraq.

Lastly, in response to the fellow who suggested that we park a nuclear ballistic missile submarine off of Iran's coast: do you really think we want to take the risk that they will be greviously offended by such a gesture, and in retaliation, launch a missile that may or may not have a nuclear warhead in the general direction of Israel? If your answer is yes, then I suppose then we have gone so far in our (wrong) doctrine of 'unilateralism' that we now resort to playing Russian Roulette with people's lives.

[Arrow]

Quote
Lastly, in response to the fellow who suggested that we park a nuclear ballistic missile submarine off of Iran's coast: do you really think we want to take the risk that they will be greviously offended by such a gesture, and in retaliation, launch a missile that may or may not have a nuclear warhead in the general direction of Israel? If your answer is yes, then I suppose then we have gone so far in our (wrong) doctrine of 'unilateralism' that we now resort to playing Russian Roulette with people's lives.

If they want to be a nuclear power, then they should be treated as such. An SSBN is an excellent deterant, and if Iran F's up (by either supplying terrorists and rogue nations with nuclear and related technology, or by launching a strike against allies in the region), then Tehran gets annihiliated. Its a simple as that. If you want a ticket to the nuclear power, you (and the rest of nation) better be willing to be the price.

Additionally, I think Tehran is smart enough to understand what launching a ballistic missile means, especially once they have nuclear technology.

[Overkill]

Quote
then Tehran gets annihiliated. Its a simple as that. If you want a ticket to the nuclear power, you (and the rest of nation) better be willing to be the price.

Oh dear, oh dear. "Pay the price", how macho. It's all very well rattling sabres with conventional weapons, but it ceases to be funny with nukes. Ronnie gave me too many sleepless nights with his dumb posturing in the 80's, never mind starting up all over again with Iran. As he discovered, far more is achieved by diplomacy than by threatening to blow a big hole in the world (we all share) .............  

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: Overkill

Quote
then Tehran gets annihiliated. Its a simple as that. If you want a ticket to the nuclear power, you (and the rest of nation) better be willing to be the price.

Oh dear, oh dear. "Pay the price", how macho. It's all very well rattling sabres with conventional weapons, but it ceases to be funny with nukes. Ronnie gave me too many sleepless nights with his dumb posturing in the 80's, never mind starting up all over again with Iran. As he discovered, far more is achieved by diplomacy than by threatening to blow a big hole in the world (we all share) .............

No, I'm not being macho. I'm sorry, but from were I sit, the threat of nuclear annihilation has prevented nuclear war and kept the door to diplomacy open. It's kept the hawkish elements in the US, Russia (Soviet Union), China from starting full-scale war during the Cold War and its forced India and Pakistan to go back to the table. Any country that builds nuclear weapons has a responsibility only to use them in the most absolute extreme circurstances and make sure they stay in safe hands (Iran worries me somewhat about this, and NK to a larger extent). Any country that is new to the nuclear club house has to understand that nukes serve as a deterent, and that the use of nukes for anything but will result (most likely) in annihilation.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear weapons are too simple to build in today's world; so its a given that a third-world physicist will figure it out, and the materials can be readily aquired; all of this despite the efforts of the major powers and the UN. Only the assured destruction approach of the Cold War will keep conflicting nations talking.

And on a similar note, I'm convinced that a nuclear war is going to happen within the next fifty years. It won't be the US, Russia or China wiping each other out, but I'm certain that the maps of the middle-east or south-east asia are going to have to be redrawn. I'm almost as certain that an incident of nuclear terrorism will happen during that time frame as well.  

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Overkill

Quote
then Tehran gets annihiliated. Its a simple as that. If you want a ticket to the nuclear power, you (and the rest of nation) better be willing to be the price.

Oh dear, oh dear. "Pay the price", how macho. It's all very well rattling sabres with conventional weapons, but it ceases to be funny with nukes. Ronnie gave me too many sleepless nights with his dumb posturing in the 80's, never mind starting up all over again with Iran. As he discovered, far more is achieved by diplomacy than by threatening to blow a big hole in the world (we all share) .............

What posturing?  You can't negotiate from a position of weakness and Reagan made sure we never had to do that.  He was always on record saying that he would only use nuclear force as a response.  He had several incidents during his Presidency (Grenada, Libya) that bore this out.  

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK

It's nice to know (just like Scut) that you LR have a sense of humour as well ... and they say Yankees don't have a sense of humour, how wrong could they be?

Almost as wrong as that who Blood for Oil diatribe  

[Overkill]

Quote
What posturing? You can't negotiate from a position of weakness and Reagan made sure we never had to do that

The posturing that created the serious tensions that excarbated US / USSR frictions perhaps? Reagan and his staff had even the "loyal" British govt worried about what he was up too. Negotiate from a position of weakness? Having the worlds largest nuclear Arsenal is hardly that. It also doesn't take a Soviet chess master to work out the US was more than willing to use it - regardless of president.

Reagans whole "aggresive foreign policy" was built on BS from the start. Attacking Grenada was cowardly and indefensible - but it won him votes, and with careful media manipulation made the US look "tough".    

[Babar]

The whole "mutually assured destruction" deterrence theory no longer holds water. We got past the Cuban Missile Crisis over 40 years ago without incident and there is nothing to indicate that we have regressed in our ability to conduct diplomacy.

Arrow, please understand that parking a nuclear ballistic missile submarine off of Iran's coast will not do much in terms of scaring them. I understand the concept you are trying to get across, but if they actually knew about that submarine they'd be unleashing their entire antisubmarine arsenal to try and sink that boat.

Furthermore, no US President (not even George Bush) is going to launch nuclear missiles at Iran or North Korea or any other country. The international response would be one of universal condemnation, for how dare we attack countries to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction while we use those very same weapons of mass destruction against others? It is my sincerest hope that you see the fallacy in this behavior, and that you recognize the incredible hypocrisy here.

We may have the world's largest and most technologically advanced military, but where is the logic in using it to squash, like flies, everyone who disagrees with us or who may pose a threat to us? Our foreign policy SIMPLY CANNOT CONSIST OF USING RAW AND BRUTE FORCE TO ENSURE THE WORLD'S COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIRES. We can't go around bashing everyone on the head. 20 years from now, once we have pissed everybody off, who do we go for help if we end up needing it greviously? We cannot always rely on our continued military dominance to keep everybody else in line.  

[Arrow]

Quote
The whole "mutually assured destruction" deterrence theory no longer holds water. We got past the Cuban Missile Crisis over 40 years ago without incident and there is nothing to indicate that we have regressed in our ability to conduct diplomacy.

Sorry, but it was the MAD policy that kept the hotspots in world events from turning into full blown world wars. The Berlin Airlift, the various wars in the Middle East, the Cubian missile crisis, Korea, Vietnam... When you know military victory is impossible, you use diplomacy and find other options.

Quote
Arrow, please understand that parking a nuclear ballistic missile submarine off of Iran's coast will not do much in terms of scaring them. I understand the concept you are trying to get across, but if they actually knew about that submarine they'd be unleashing their entire antisubmarine arsenal to try and sink that boat.

All that's needed is some saber rattling. Publicising an SSBN visiting a friendly port in the region (and not necessary a Middle Eastern port, just one that is well in range, such as India) is all that is required to get the point across.

Quote
Furthermore, no US President (not even George Bush) is going to launch nuclear missiles at Iran or North Korea or any other country. The international response would be one of universal condemnation, for how dare we attack countries to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction while we use those very same weapons of mass destruction against others? It is my sincerest hope that you see the fallacy in this behavior, and that you recognize the incredible hypocrisy here.

Please show me where in this thread I said we should preemptively nuke Iran or NK. Don't going putting words in my mouth. I said we need to use them as deterents. I would only support a preemptive nuclear strike if it was supported allies in the region and by Russia. Additionally, we would have to have information stating that a launch from the target country was about to occur.

Quote
We may have the world's largest and most technologically advanced military, but where is the logic in using it to squash, like flies, everyone who disagrees with us or who may pose a threat to us? Our foreign policy SIMPLY CANNOT CONSIST OF USING RAW AND BRUTE FORCE TO ENSURE THE WORLD'S COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIRES. We can't go around bashing everyone on the head. 20 years from now, once we have pissed everybody off, who do we go for help if we end up needing it greviously? We cannot always rely on our continued military dominance to keep everybody else in line.

And I don't think anyone here is advocating that. You really aren't reading what people have said in this thread, you're simply arguing the points you want to argue. Scut's not advocating attacking everyone that disagrees with us. I'm not saying we should use our military to destroy anyone that even half-heartly threatens us. Diplomacy is a very useful tool, and should always be the first and primary tool to be used to resolve disagreements and conflicts. But diplomacy does have its limits, and it must be backed up by  other tools when it fails.  

[Overkill]

Quote
We cannot always rely on our continued military dominance to keep everybody else in line.

Well said that man! The British made the same mistake, and by the time we finally realised that we were isolated, and the rest of the world had caught us up in either military terms or made dangerous alliances. That realisation, and the scramble to find allies had a terrible price, it was paid in 1914.