Iran warnes US to not return carrier to Persian Gulf

[BigRob]

The same way we have defined our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; we destroy their entire military within a month or two, affect regime change, then hang around for at least a decade to do some good old fashioned nation building. That is the standard we've set so that's the standard by which I'm basing my judgements. Now if you have some credible evidence that would convince me otherwise, then I would revise my judgements based on the new information.

Libya comes to mind -- and of course the fact that no one has the stomach for another "war" like Iraq or Afghanistan that right now.

 

[Openmind]

And you think that even if we had a president stupid enough to do that we, as a country, would be immune to retribution by other Muslims countries?
You live in a dream world. ONE nuclear explosion will just trigger another one. . .and although we have MORE atomic bombs than anyone else. . .it will not mean much if half or 2/3 of America is devastated by just a couple of nuclear attacks.

And this is in ADDITION to the loss of life in other countries that cannot possibly be considered lightly!

 

[dogtowner]

And you think that even if we had a president stupid enough to do that we, as a country, would be immune to retribution by other Muslims countries?
You live in a dream world. ONE nuclear explosion will just trigger another one. . .and although we have MORE atomic bombs than anyone else. . .it will not mean much if half or 2/3 of America is devastated by just a couple of nuclear attacks.

And this is in ADDITION to the loss of life in other countries that cannot possibly be considered lightly!

Just curious, hypothetically speaking who do you think would attempt nuclear retaliation ?

 

[GenSeneca]

Libya comes to mind -- and of course the fact that no one has the stomach for another "war" like Iraq or Afghanistan that right now.

I see... So Iran explodes in a spontaneous civil war that's so big the current regime won't be able to contain it, then we send in the USAF to provide the poorly armed rebels with all the air support they need to steamroll over the pro-government forces, and all live happily ever after. Great. How's Tuesday sound?

Yeah... Not buying it. When the "Arab spring" poked it's head out in Iran, they cut the head off, screamed "Allahu Akbar!", and then shat down it's throat. The idea that an uprising, similar to Libya, could happen in Iran doesn't seem plausible.

Also, while I may not have your insight into the current strains of thought in US foreign policy, I know there is a rift regarding how to deal with Iran. One side believes we can accomplish the mission through air-power alone (and of course a handful of clandestine troops that won't officially be there) while the other side believes we need to have a full on invasion to accomplish the mission because of; a. how deep underground the facilities are, and b. how secretive the entire program has been.

We supposedly invaded Iraq because we were determined to prevent them from building nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Even though it turned out Saddam wasn't building nukes, or anything else, we are now 100% certain that Iraq is not pursuing any type of weapons of mass destruction. That kind of certainty appears to be tipping the scales of atomic paranoia toward those arguing for a full blown invasion against Iran:


UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East

That doesn't look like the plans for a Libyan style "war" my friend... It looks like the exact same type of "war" we started, and are still fighting more than a decade later, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now unless you have some plausible, credible evidence that Iran will erupt in a civil war (whereby the rebel movement will only require US air support in order to overthrow the government), let's discuss the negative impacts, and subsequent ripple effects, that the above "joint plan to attack Iran" is likely to create so that you may begin to understand how I arrived at my dire conclusion.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes..but we need to be careful. How are you defining a "war"? Are you envisioning a sustained ground campaign, or a few air raids?

But, I am happy to talk about the negative ramifications of the use of force in this scenario.

the use of force could lead to sustained ground campaign...weather it is what we planned for or not. You can plan to tit someone, but you can't know for sure what the Tat will be and how you will respond to that. I doubt WWI was what was planned for when they decided to shoot the Ferdinand...Just because we decice a limited strike..does not mean Iran does not decided to take if farther forcing our hand...

so if your not prepared for a full war....then your not prepared for a limited strike as well in my view.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Humanitarian issues are no reason to get involved anywhere....ever.

Its funny how often I hear that from the same people who would go to war for Israel..or for Oil, or so many other reasons....Genocide is not worth stopping..unless its Effecting our economics somehow...the true compassion of the Right and the Christians?

Funny how peoples idea of whats moral and should be stopped ends at a Imaginary line drawn on a map.

 

[Gipper]

Its funny how often I hear that from the same people who would go to war for Israel..or for Oil, or so many other reasons....Genocide is not worth stopping..unless its Effecting our economics somehow...the true compassion of the Right and the Christians?

Funny how peoples idea of whats moral and should be stopped ends at a Imaginary line drawn on a map.

Once again there is much wrong with this post. Have you forgotten your beloved BJ Bubba's adventures in Bosnia/Serbia or his continued involvement in Somalia? What about BO's continuing the wars in Afghan and Iraq? Or, his involvement in Libya? Who pushed Bush I into putting boots on the ground in Somalia, if not the lib media who cried incessantly about the poor Somalias are starving? So, apparently libs like "genocide" too.

You claim cons and Christians like genocide if our economy is affected. This is an absurd claim backed up by nothing but your silly leftist opinion. No con or Christian wants genocide, but you are blinded by your ideology and incapable of thinking logically. Yes, cons do think America should go to war to protect it's interests, as do many liberals. But, can you name one Christian leader who espouses genocide to protect our economy?

Do you not see how foolish your thinking is?

 

[BigRob]

And you think that even if we had a president stupid enough to do that we, as a country, would be immune to retribution by other Muslims countries?
You live in a dream world. ONE nuclear explosion will just trigger another one. . .and although we have MORE atomic bombs than anyone else. . .it will not mean much if half or 2/3 of America is devastated by just a couple of nuclear attacks.

And this is in ADDITION to the loss of life in other countries that cannot possibly be considered lightly!

Who exactly are you envisioning has the capability to "devastate half or 2/3rds of America"? These rouge states possess very low yield weapons (if they possess weapons at all), and while it may sound crass -- the United States can absorb several low yield nuclear attacks with relative ease (relatively speaking of course)

 

[GenSeneca]

Its funny how often I hear that from the same people who would go to war for Israel..or for Oil, or so many other reasons....Genocide is not worth stopping..unless its Effecting our economics somehow...the true compassion of the Right and the Christians?

Funny how peoples idea of whats moral and should be stopped ends at a Imaginary line drawn on a map.

You still haven't answered the question: How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice in the name of stopping a genocide?

 

[BigRob]

I see... So Iran explodes in a spontaneous civil war that's so big the current regime won't be able to contain it, then we send in the USAF to provide the poorly armed rebels with all the air support they need to steamroll over the pro-government forces, and all live happily ever after. Great. How's Tuesday sound?

You are going to far into the analogy. Libya is a recent example where we got involved (however wrongly in my view) without a sustained ground campaign -- and frankly without much of a sustained air campaign. To delay an Iranian weapon, we don't have to enact regime change, we don't have to support rebel groups, we just have to hit a few key sites. (in theory of course)

Of course there are all kinds of problems with the air raid scenario, but it does not mean a ground campaign or really anything outside of a air raid.

Yeah... Not buying it. When the "Arab spring" poked it's head out in Iran, they cut the head off, screamed "Allahu Akbar!", and then shat down it's throat. The idea that an uprising, similar to Libya, could happen in Iran doesn't seem plausible.

I'm not buying it either -- but the problem is no one is selling what we are not buying. The point is simply we can delay a weapon (in theory) via air strikes without further involvement.

Also, while I may not have your insight into the current strains of thought in US foreign policy, I know there is a rift regarding how to deal with Iran. One side believes we can accomplish the mission through air-power alone (and of course a handful of clandestine troops that won't officially be there) while the other side believes we need to have a full on invasion to accomplish the mission because of; a. how deep underground the facilities are, and b. how secretive the entire program has been.

And another side thinks we can deal with the scenario through sanctions and diplomacy alone, and another side thinks an Iranian weapon is not a problem, and yet another side believes we can accomplish the mission solely in a clandestine fashion. There are indeed rifts.

We supposedly invaded Iraq because we were determined to prevent them from building nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Even though it turned out Saddam wasn't building nukes, or anything else, we are now 100% certain that Iraq is not pursuing any type of weapons of mass destruction. That kind of certainty appears to be tipping the scales of atomic paranoia toward those arguing for a full blown invasion against Iran:


UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East

That doesn't look like the plans for a Libyan style "war" my friend... It looks like the exact same type of "war" we started, and are still fighting more than a decade later, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This graphic doesn't look like anything...except a rudimentary 5th grade drawing. That is no plan -- and the source for these so called invasion plans in the article? None.

But let us think logically for a moment -- The Pentagon damn well better have a war plan drawn up Iran (and other hot spots) -- that is how they operate, and it is their job.

Now unless you have some plausible, credible evidence that Iran will erupt in a civil war (whereby the rebel movement will only require US air support in order to overthrow the government),

I never made such a statement -- you did, and then argued against it.

let's discuss the negative impacts, and subsequent ripple effects, that the above "joint plan to attack Iran" is likely to create so that you may begin to understand how I arrived at my dire conclusion.

The above "joint attack plan" is unsourced lunacy -- but the mere creation of a plan (which one hopes we have) hardly means that is the decided policy.


Edit: I see that the article references a special unit within the UK MoD that is tasked with working on a plan -- something that is not surprising -- and something the Pentagon should have already been doing.

 

[BigRob]

the use of force could lead to sustained ground campaign...weather it is what we planned for or not.

Possibly -- however highly unlikely in this scenario in my opinion.

You can plan to tit someone, but you can't know for sure what the Tat will be and how you will respond to that. I doubt WWI was what was planned for when they decided to shoot the Ferdinand...Just because we decice a limited strike..does not mean Iran does not decided to take if farther forcing our hand...

What do you feel the Iranian response would be to an air strike?

so if your not prepared for a full war....then your not prepared for a limited strike as well in my view.

I don't buy this at all -- were you prepared for a sustained ground war in Libya? I recall you supported that action.

 

[BigRob]

Its funny how often I hear that from the same people who would go to war for Israel..or for Oil, or so many other reasons....Genocide is not worth stopping..unless its Effecting our economics somehow...the true compassion of the Right and the Christians?

Funny how peoples idea of whats moral and should be stopped ends at a Imaginary line drawn on a map.

I have said all along that we should only get involved (which includes going to war) if it is in the protection or furthering of our interests. And in the absence of a clear, definable interest, we have no reason to get involved. My view is seemingly shared by Democrats alike -- because Genocide is occurring all around the world today, and we do nothing.

 

[RoccoR]

BigRob, et al,

I tend to think that this is a very key element.

And in the absence of a clear, definable interest, we have no reason to get involved.

(COMMENT)

This is suppose to be determined in the National Security Decision Making Process (NSDMP). It is this process that is flawed, and has been flawed for several decades. Again:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

We haven't updated US Foreign Policy, and it is - in its current form - creating more problems than it solves. It has taken America down the path of a military hegemony and put us at odds with the Arab World (among others) and weakened our credibility as a rational Super Power. It has damaged our economy and homeland infrastructure to the point that we cannot afford to maintain the military strength necessary to enforce our American Centrist Policies. And because we are "centrist" we are not trusted as a world power to act in a trustworthy fashion as a world leader. Essentially, no nation sees America as a fair broker in its policies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[dogtowner]

We haven't updated US Foreign Policy, and it is - in its current form - creating more problems than it solves. It has taken America down the path of a military hegemony and put us at odds with the Arab World (among others) and weakened our credibility as a rational Super Power. It has damaged our economy and homeland infrastructure to the point that we cannot afford to maintain the military strength necessary to enforce our American Centrist Policies. And because we are "centrist" we are not trusted as a world power to act in a trustworthy fashion as a world leader. Essentially, no nation sees America as a fair broker in its policies.

Most Respectfully,
R

Centrist policies ? meaning something akin to self centered I guess and what nation fails to act in what it sees as its own self interest ? I for one do not care to devalue America to be the peer level you appear to support nor do I believe that any other nation would agree to act in like kind if we were to.

Some may find the nature of power to be undesirable but the simple fact of human nature is that the pursuit of power is with us forever. It may moderate from its more brutal history but its never going away.

 

[GenSeneca]

Edit: I see that the article references a special unit within the UK MoD that is tasked with working on a plan -- something that is not surprising -- and something the Pentagon should have already been doing.

You believe that our most likely miltary response to Iran will be limited to air strikes... What evidence has led you to this conclusion? Show us.

I believe that our most likely military response will be an invasion and that's based on the publicly available news articles, such as the one I posted, and our clear record in recent history for dealing with perceived threats through regime change and nation building.

Until we come to some agreement on that, do you believe there is any credibility to my suggestion that an Iraq style invasion of Iran could lead to the collapse of the United States government? I understand if you would not view that specific action as being the straw that finaly breaks our back but I think you're failing to consider the hay bail worth of straw that would inevitably land on our back as a result of that action.