Iran Opinions

[The Man From G.O.P.]

We'd have to deal with a new Shiite insurgency in Iraq.

Frodo Is suggesting that the Iranians would have even a chance at beating a US force in battle in the Middle East, that is nonsense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We'd have to deal with a new Shiite insurgency in Iraq.

Frodo Is suggesting that the Iranians would have even a chance at beating a US force in battle in the Middle East, that is nonsense.

No it's not. Do you research on the Iranian military, Iran's terrain, and how spread thinly the US is now.

Remember, a bunch of Afghan tribalists with unimpressive weaponry beat the Soviet Union.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

We'd have to deal with a new Shiite insurgency in Iraq.

Frodo Is suggesting that the Iranians would have even a chance at beating a US force in battle in the Middle East, that is nonsense.

No it's not. Do you research on the Iranian military, Iran's terrain, and how spread thinly the US is now.

Remember, a bunch of Afghan tribalists with unimpressive weaponry beat the Soviet Union.

Read again, Frodo suggests that the Iranians could attack and defeat an American army on an equal field in Iraq because America is "scattered" and could be defeated piecemeal

[Frodo]

as for the draft, it is impractical.  where would we train the new draftees? 

  Any military strike we make on Iran will invite retaliatory attacks that could have the potential of destroying our scattered units throughout Iraq in detail -and then we would be honor-bound to avenge them by scraping together another army to retake the lost territory.  And where would that extra manpower come from then? 

 

First off, American units are never scattered, It would be impossible for Iranian units to do anything but piss us off in a case where they attack us in Iraq, thier military quality is that of the Iraqis, Second, we would never be engaged in DETAIL one after another, we have these communication devices called PHONES that allow things to be a little more organized than the dark ages. Also to assume that we dont have many satillites focused on Iran is crazy, we would know about any mobilization they made, and have the capability to wipe it out long before it could reach us in Iraq. Your mis-understanding of modern military tactics and status is too great for you to be talking like this.

You know what? I know what you are implying, and you're absolutely right -we are invincible!  Let's take on Syria and Sudan too while we're at it. 

[Frodo]

Fu** this...I'll change my vote -not only should we do a conventional airstrike, but also launch a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran.  And that should also involve reinstating the draft so we could have a deep reserve of readily-deployable manpower that we can throw at them.  If we are going to wipe out Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to stop short with only an airstrike while the Iranian populace is clamoring for vengeance in its aftermath with terrorist cells being readied to wreak hell on the American homeland.  Let's fight the terrorists there rather than here.   

[YRABNNRM]

We can't do anything, our hands are tied. Same thing with NK.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

as for the draft, it is impractical.  where would we train the new draftees? 

  Any military strike we make on Iran will invite retaliatory attacks that could have the potential of destroying our scattered units throughout Iraq in detail -and then we would be honor-bound to avenge them by scraping together another army to retake the lost territory.  And where would that extra manpower come from then? 

 

First off, American units are never scattered, It would be impossible for Iranian units to do anything but piss us off in a case where they attack us in Iraq, thier military quality is that of the Iraqis, Second, we would never be engaged in DETAIL one after another, we have these communication devices called PHONES that allow things to be a little more organized than the dark ages. Also to assume that we dont have many satillites focused on Iran is crazy, we would know about any mobilization they made, and have the capability to wipe it out long before it could reach us in Iraq. Your mis-understanding of modern military tactics and status is too great for you to be talking like this.

You know what? I know what you are implying, and you're absolutely right -we are invincible!  Let's take on Syria and Sudan too while we're at it. 

No, not at all, it's just your thinking couldn't be farther from the truth

[dazzleman]

Fu** this...I'll change my vote -not only should we do a conventional airstrike, but also launch a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran.  And that should also involve reinstating the draft so we could have a deep reserve of readily-deployable manpower that we can throw at them.  If we are going to wipe out Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to stop short with only an airstrike while the Iranian populace is clamoring for vengeance in its aftermath with terrorist cells being readied to wreak hell on the American homeland.  Let's fight the terrorists there rather than here.   

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

[DanielX]

Depending on what's neccesary, any of them. If Iran has nukes and uses them on anything outside of its borders (unless they hit another nuclear power like Russia or China), the we ought to whip out our nukes.

Otherwise, it depends.

A draft is highly unlikely, however there are methods of doing things. One is to not occupy Iran afterwards to the degree that we do Iraq. Another is that there are still some troops in areas that are unneeded (in Europe, frex - a lot of troops in Germany and not all of them are needed to support other operations abroad). Another possibility is to pull troops from South Korea (there are still 25,000 there), and warn the North Koreans if they invade or launch WMDs we won't hesitate to turn Pyongyang into a smoldering glass pile. Another is to voluntarily expand the armed forces - they almost always meet or exceed recruiting levels as is and they can sweeten the deal with lots of offered combat pay and targeted recruitment (the concept of offering high school grads with mediocre grades to pay their ways through colleges is a good way to get someone in).

One possibility is a pseudo-foreign legion - offer immigrants fast-track to citizenship for joining the military, perhaps even offer amnesty to illegals who agree to serve. The latter might be a problem - many illegals might not have any loyalty to the US military, and I imagine military officials would look down on folks who are already criminals.

One thing to blame is the post-cold-war military cuts instituted by Bush I and Clinton - the US Army today has about 500,000 men compared to 750,000 in 1992. An extra 250,000 men in the Army would have allowed simultaneous occupations of Iraq and Iran (with current troop levels elsewhere), perhaps with enough left over to station a few tens of thousands at the Mexican border. Even an extra 50,000 would have helped.

Also, I'm not convinced that we'll need all 150,000 troops in Iraq forever. The Iraqi forces are getting better (though they do have problems, they're doing more than they were 2 years ago and in the more peaceful provinces they can do patrols without US assistance), and most of the attacks occur in a few areas (one of the reasons they're reported so much is that one of the big-attack zones happens to be Baghdad where most of the media, and a large part of US forces, are located).

[Frodo]

Fu** this...I'll change my vote -not only should we do a conventional airstrike, but also launch a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran.  And that should also involve reinstating the draft so we could have a deep reserve of readily-deployable manpower that we can throw at them.  If we are going to wipe out Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to stop short with only an airstrike while the Iranian populace is clamoring for vengeance in its aftermath with terrorist cells being readied to wreak hell on the American homeland.  Let's fight the terrorists there rather than here.   

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

Dazzleman -I see no reason why we can't simply contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union for over a half-century.  It is the least dangerous option out there, and though it is a dangerous regime, it nonetheless is a regime that values its own self-preservation.  They are rational beings.  Iran is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda which cannot be contained like any other nation-state and therefore must be hunted down with whatever means are at our disposal. 

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Fu** this...I'll change my vote -not only should we do a conventional airstrike, but also launch a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran.  And that should also involve reinstating the draft so we could have a deep reserve of readily-deployable manpower that we can throw at them.  If we are going to wipe out Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to stop short with only an airstrike while the Iranian populace is clamoring for vengeance in its aftermath with terrorist cells being readied to wreak hell on the American homeland.  Let's fight the terrorists there rather than here.   

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

Dazzleman -I see no reason why we can't simply contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union for over a half-century.  It is the least dangerous option out there, and though it is a dangerous regime, it nonetheless is a regime that values its own self-preservation.  They are rational beings.  Iran is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda which cannot be contained like any other nation-state and therefore must be hunted down with whatever means are at our disposal. 

Frodo, your point is valid and your mind is in the right place, but the reality of the situation doesn't allow for us to do the same thing this time. You have to remember we had the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to hold against the Soviets, they knew that America, if attacked, had the willpower and guts to wipe Communism off the map. This situation is completely different. Given the opportunity, the far right wing Islamic facists (that indeed exist) would take any uranium enriched or bought by the government and use it in such a way where it could do damage to this country. Imagine Los Angeles dissapearing one day? Now yes, it would be difficult for hardliners to come by this material, but surely not impossible. Knowing full well thier country would suffer nothing more than an American invasion, and with the whole-hearted view of martyrdom in thier minds, they would have no problem deploying such a weapon.

Meaning, do something about it now.

[phk]

As time moves on.. Iraq is beginning to look like a strategic blunder.

[??????????]

where would we train the new draftees? 

Who knows? Clinton closed all the important bases down.

[phk]

U.S. Options on Confronting Iran Limited
Tehran's announcement on nuclear enrichment calls into question assumptions made in Washington about using pressure on the regime.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer

April 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush, who has defined his dealings with Iran in terms of confrontation since the early days of his administration, may have been drawn one step closer to a showdown after Tehran asserted Tuesday that it had successfully produced enriched uranium that can be used as nuclear fuel.

Through years of tough talk and veiled threats, Bush and members of his administration have been the chief proponents of ratcheting up international pressure to persuade Iran's leaders to accede to demands that they forswear atomic weapons and steer clear of nuclear enrichment work. In its new national security manifesto, the White House warned in stark terms last month that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program must succeed "if confrontation is to be avoided."

But Tuesday's announcement is certain to raise questions not only about Bush's approach to the Iranian nuclear issue, but also about other U.S. judgments, such as whether U.S. intelligence agencies are able to accurately assess Iran's capabilities and intentions.

U.S. officials have based their approach toward Iran on a conviction that sustained pressure from the world community would force the Iranian leadership to back down, arguing that this has long been Iran's pattern.

Iran's announcement "seems to negate that idea," said Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"What they're trying to say is, 'That type of pressure isn't going to work, and we'll meet pressure with our own countermeasures,' " Takeyh said.

Bush administration officials have rejected suggestions that they negotiate directly with Iran. But they have pursued a diplomatic course from a distance, backing efforts by European negotiators while constantly criticizing Iran, refusing to disavow U.S. military options and pushing for international sanctions by the United Nations.

If that approach has proven ineffective, Bush is likely to face questions from across the political spectrum about whether a different approach — softer or harder — may have been better.

The Iranians insist their only objective is to develop a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program. And they say they have now succeeded in enriching uranium to the concentration needed for civilian nuclear power generation. It is unclear whether they yet have the kind of mastery of the process they would need to enrich uranium on an industrial scale necessary to eventually produce nuclear weapons fuel.

Bush, for his part, has declared in the past that he wants to prevent Iran from enriching uranium even to the point necessary for civilian use, fearing that capability could lead to the ability to produce a bomb.

"Enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil … is not acceptable to the international community," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last month.

Iran's announcement appeared to be timed to convince the U.N. Security Council that there was no longer any need for the council to press the country to halt its nuclear research program. "They want to be able to present this as a fait accompli," Takeyh said.

Such a defiant declaration would quickly test the U.S. plan to confront Iran with a unified world response. Some countries may be galvanized to more forceful action by the Iranian news. But others, such as Russia, have already been convinced that Iran was going to gain nuclear capability sooner or later. For them, the news may further lessen their appetite for a dispute with Tehran.

Within the United States, the enrichment announcement is likely to bring a challenge to the Bush policy from conservative opponents of containment who have been urging more forceful action, fearing that the administration was taking too much time trying to build a consensus and gradually increasing pressure on Tehran.

U.S. intelligence officials have estimated that Iran is five to 10 years away from being able to develop a nuclear bomb. But even before Tuesday's announcement, Israel had estimated that Iran could gain the knowledge needed to build a bomb within the next few months. Israeli newspapers Tuesday quoted unidentified senior officials as saying that they believe Iran's claims are accurate and in line with Israel's forecasts.

Last month, staff members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told foreign diplomats in briefings that they believed the Iranians were moving faster than expected with their small-scale enrichment efforts. They predicted that Tehran might be able to build a bomb in three years.

"If it turns out that the Iranians have been moving a heck of a lot faster than we thought, we're going to have to consider ways to press them sooner," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "If it turns out that the Iranians were making a lot of progress, and our estimates were too optimistic, then we've got a problem here."

One U.S. official, however, defended the U.S. estimate, saying that Iran's most recent claims still put it years away from being capable of building a bomb. The Iranian claims and the U.S. predictions still are "broadly consistent," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing U.S. intelligence estimates.

[opebo]

Nothing, obviously.

[MasterJedi]

Conventional airstrikes along with special forces inserted into specific areas.

And kill Opebo as well.

[The Duke]

They are rational beings.

They calim the holocaust never happenned.  That is not rational, and suggesting it is is not serious.

[Democratic Hawk]

Conventional air strikes, if anything. No way to a ground war because Iran would make Iraq look like a playground

Dave