IBTG81 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Are you completely insane? Iran is many times the size of Iraq, both in terms of population and land-area. Where on earth would the US get the manpower for a "full-scale invasion", seeing as it is stretched by the occupation of Iraq as it is? Still, they could always introduce conscription and then you'd get to find out first-hand what it is you so casually advocate. 530643[/snapback] That is why we use our Air Force, which is largely being ignored in the current war we are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That is why we use our Air Force, which is largely being ignored in the current war we are in. 530671[/snapback] I think that the phrase "full-scale invasion" implies that some sort of ground invasion will actually take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That is why we use our Air Force, which is largely being ignored in the current war we are in. 530671[/snapback] 1) No, it isn't. It's not applicable in many situations...but it's not being ignored. Ask the people in Fallujah. 2) "Use our Air Force" is just a little simplistic. Air power has significant limitations in its use, particularly in the manner in which you seem to be implying it should be used. I'm not to keen on getting into it right now...but I can recommend 20-30 good books on the subject if you'd like to study it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 But they are currently in a much sounder position to capitalize on it. nK is on an island, Iran has a movement behind them. Nobody, though, can build tunnels like the nK. 530302[/snapback] I agree that Iran is in a better situation, but I do not agree with the DPRK being on an island. When you have China looking for status quo and South Korea pulling a Clinton, the DPRK is in pretty good shape. The U.S. cannot get much done as long as these two "partners" are doing what they are doing. The DPRK will end up getting their light-water reactor, they will not have to conform to C.I.V.D. and the IAEA will continue to be pawns. The UN does not have the backbone to do anything. If they did, China would just veto any sanctions. Basically, if the DPRK continues doing what they are doing, they will get the bulk of what they want and there is not much the U.S. can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Yes..we are really prepared to go hot in another country. The last I looked folks were on fourth and fifth deployment to Iraq, the military was doing cartwheels to meet its hiring goals. I think this is about as lame as that site Ghost of BIB posted about the plan we have for a war with Korea, which counts on existing forces holding until we send half a million non-existent troops from the US some eight weeks after they invade. We don't have the horses to run the type of race you are proposing. Frankly, Israel is in a pretty tough situation as well, as Iran may have more allies than our intelligence folks think and we could end up being dragged into a regional war to save Israel's bacon. John Wayne thinking isn't going to solve this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 John Wayne thinking isn't going to solve this problem. 530725[/snapback] What *is* then, oh wise and beneficient one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Hey..it took us fifty years to get into this mess..I don't think I'm going to be able to propose a way out in fifteen minutes. I don't pretend to be as smart as those on this board who have the instant solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Hey..it took us fifty years to get into this mess..I don't think I'm going to be able to propose a way out in fifteen minutes. I don't pretend to be as smart as those on this board who have the instant solution. 530822[/snapback] Well, then don't criticise the one solution, faulty as it may be, that has been put forward. Bring something to the table for a change, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is a serious question...Why not a full-scale invasion? I'm not talking like what we're doing in Iraq. I'm talking full military force (i.e. "f" the innocents). Isn't it better to get them before they get us? 530610[/snapback] What do you propose we do with Iran once we invade it? They didn't even like the nice Shah we gave them the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That is why we use our Air Force, which is largely being ignored in the current war we are in. 530671[/snapback] And our Navy...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Well, then don't criticise the one solution, faulty as it may be, that has been put forward. Bring something to the table for a change, huh? 530881[/snapback] Okkay...let's bring something to the table. I've been hearing about the Iraq "problem", the Iran "problem", and other middle eastern problems for some years. Before we in the US try to "solve" these on a problem by problem basis, wouldn't be better off trying to analyze what the problems actually are, and whether they are generally the same problems? Is the Iran problem a nuclear problem? Not taking away from the fact that nuclear proliferation ratchets up the possible consequences of not solving the underlying problems, is it possible that focusing on that particular aspect masks the real problems? Second...is it our "problem" to solve? What legitimacy do we have with these countries that would give us a moral, legal or, for that matter, practical authority to "solve" the problem. I'd spend a lot more time defining what the problem was (I suspect it is more of Middle East problem than an Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or Saudi Arabia "problem") assess who the stakeholders are and enlist the participation of all to attempt to arrest them. Sounds like a better plan than an invasion. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 And our Navy...... 530892[/snapback] ..and our Coast Gaurd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 What I think (I don't know if I am right), but since 9-11 Iran's hand has been considerably strengthened. Iraq to the West, its former enemy in war is vanquished and a naturally sympathetic Shia community has risen in stature as a result. To the east, the Taliban has fallen and Pakistan has little ability to project power which makes the Iran the biggest regional and most stable player. Because American resources are tied down in Iraq, there is very little to check any Iranian moves in the region that are not overtly hostile (building a bomb is something the Iranian people apparently want). As I see it, Iran has the next 5-10 years to go without a true regional adversary or the ability or willingness of the world to check it in any way. They have managed to stay out of the Iraqi post-invasion, because what we are proposing to make is much better than what they had to live with previously. In poker terms, the U.S. has busted the other players at the table but doesn't have the stack to take Iran out, so Iran has reaped a dividend from US actions in the past 4 years. The caviar is tasting better than ever in Tehran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Okkay...let's bring something to the table. I've been hearing about the Iraq "problem", the Iran "problem", and other middle eastern problems for some years. Before we in the US try to "solve" these on a problem by problem basis, wouldn't be better off trying to analyze what the problems actually are, and whether they are generally the same problems? Is the Iran problem a nuclear problem? Not taking away from the fact that nuclear proliferation ratchets up the possible consequences of not solving the underlying problems, is it possible that focusing on that particular aspect masks the real problems? Second...is it our "problem" to solve? What legitimacy do we have with these countries that would give us a moral, legal or, for that matter, practical authority to "solve" the problem. I'd spend a lot more time defining what the problem was (I suspect it is more of Middle East problem than an Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or Saudi Arabia "problem") assess who the stakeholders are and enlist the participation of all to attempt to arrest them. Sounds like a better plan than an invasion. But that's just me. 530896[/snapback] I never said anything about an invasion, and I think the idea of one is not a good idea at all. If you go back and read (for a change) you'll see that I already said this can't be "solved" without considerable support, that is also not that likely to come. For reasons of self interest, most of the "stakeholders" are willing to sit back and do their thing, figuring the US will come along like the cavalry if and when needed. That gives them the best of both worlds. Problem comes from the proliferation side. Were Iran to actually "go nuclear", it probably would not be long before Saudi Arabia followed suit, and perhaps a few others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I never said anything about an invasion, and I think the idea of one is not a good idea at all. If you go back and read (for a change) you'll see that I already said this can't be "solved" without considerable support, that is also not that likely to come. For reasons of self interest, most of the "stakeholders" are willing to sit back and do their thing, figuring the US will come along like the cavalry if and when needed. That gives them the best of both worlds. Problem comes from the proliferation side. Were Iran to actually "go nuclear", it probably would not be long before Saudi Arabia followed suit, and perhaps a few others. 530919[/snapback] Of course they will "go nuclear" and we will not be able to stop it. Invasion talk is a nice way to beg the question, but the issue is whether they will use it against us (unlikely in the short term because of delivery problems) or against what we consider an essential ally (more likely) or against their own legitimate and immediate enemy (most likely). We have to build a l body that will have the authority to establish legitimate and effective means of dispute resolution as an alternative to nuclear war. The first nuclear war won't be between us and Iran...it will be Pakistan and India or some other countries as a result of a particular incident...their 9/11 as it were. I would be willing to bet that the first nuclear weapons actually used against us in the continental US will have been manufactured in Eastern Europe and bootlegged by terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 And our Navy...... 530892[/snapback] Speaking of.....they've been pretty much useless in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 Speaking of.....they've been pretty much useless in Afghanistan. 530942[/snapback] Oddly enough, the wife of a coworker is a Naval Petty Officer. She is now enroute to Afghanistan with her detachment, so they must be doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That is why we use our Air Force, which is largely being ignored in the current war we are in. 530671[/snapback] What use exactly would you make of the Air Force against an insurgency such as what is going on in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 What do you propose we do with Iran once we invade it? They didn't even like the nice Shah we gave them the first time. 530887[/snapback] We will be embraced as liberators so I don't think we will really need a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I never said anything about an invasion, and I think the idea of one is not a good idea at all. If you go back and read (for a change) you'll see that I already said this can't be "solved" without considerable support, that is also not that likely to come. For reasons of self interest, most of the "stakeholders" are willing to sit back and do their thing, figuring the US will come along like the cavalry if and when needed. That gives them the best of both worlds. Problem comes from the proliferation side. Were Iran to actually "go nuclear", it probably would not be long before Saudi Arabia followed suit, and perhaps a few others. 530919[/snapback] We will have to pursue the same strategies as we did during the cold war. Mutual assured destruction, missile defense, alliances, etc. The whole shooting match. Anybody invades anybody, they get nuked. Suicide terrorism is one thing, involving one or a handful of suicides. I don't see a whole nation committing suicide by going after an enemy who has enough nukes to obliterate them. The real problem, a nuclear muslim state with lots of oil decides that with its nukes, it is empowered to jack up the price of gas for the US until its standard of living resembles that found in Inodnesian slums. All our soldiers, weapons, jets, training, etc. will mean zippity doo dah if they can fire off enough nukes. We will have no choice but to pay and pay and pay. The only solution: energy independence, some way, some how. Drilling amongst the reindeer will not do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts