This should probably be in the Current Events Forum, but I want you all to see this:

I have some friends that told me back in December that if something doesn't happen in Iran, that Israel backed by US patriot batteries OR we, will attack Iran, and to expect this to occur no later than the end of April.

Then today, I see this News:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html

Also saw a few other stories like this--the guardian isn't the best, but this is accurate I believe.

I really think its going to be really bad if we attack Iran's nuke sites..
Because you know who Iran's best friends are. Russia and China. I can see them cutting ties with the US, or hell, all grouping up to attack the US. Bush doesn't know how to be respectful to other nations.. I don't know if its just how he comes off, or what, but he sure seems to be forcing Iran's hand. (and shaking the hornets nest) He could go about it in a much better way IMO ....

Heh, I even had a dream the other night, and I don't remember all of it--maybe we attacked their nuke plants or not, but I seem to remember Iran launching a huge surprise attack on the US (maybe sinking a carrier ship?) and then coming on TV and saying "As of now, we are at war with the United States".
Crazy.. I just wish everyone would calm down... Tenson is so thick, you can cut it with a knife in the Middle East.

Here are some questions for you all:


1. Do you believe Iran needs to be stopped? If yes, How you YOU get them to stop without resorting to an attack?

2. If the US and or Israel attacks all the nuke sites in a surprise attack, what do you think the backlash will be from not only Iran, but other countries such as Russia and China?

3. If Iran is attacked, how do you think Iran would respond personally?

4. Do you believe we are dangerously close to a World War?

5. Would Iraq fall into a full civil war with Iranian forces coming over?


Just wanted to throw this out there and see how others feel. I personally don't want to see any more wars. BUT the Iran situation is a hard one.
It's like do we trust that they are not going to make nukes? Or, If we believe they are going to make them, like the North Koreans did, they how do we deal with it when Russia and China will not agree to heavy sanctions? And if we attack, we have our forces in Iraq---VERY close to Iran's missiles.

I have seen the signs of the war machine starting up. Moving supplies over, stockpiling oil, minesweeper boats we don't need for Iraq going over.... And another super carrier is going to be in the Gulf soon.

If we do act on Iran, it'll be from the air only. And now they are talking about using nuke tipped bunker busters, because Iran's sites are so deep under ground. (The nukes are extremely low yield--less than 1kt) but still--the headlines would still read: US drops nukes on Iran. (YOU know how the media loves to make something more out of a situation--like this Anna Smith story.

Is there REALLY 3 non-stop days of coverage needed? I don't get it. I am like "okay, she died. Its sad, but leave it at that" we don't need to know what dress she was wearing when she died for gods sake. just don't understand the media these days..

Anyway, sorry for changing subjects.. I just don't get that either.

[ 02-10-2007, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

1. Yes, they need to be stopped. There is nothing more scary than a guy talking about the war to end all wars, as he's done in the recent past, having nuclear technology. To this point, diplomacy has not only failed, but has been outright scorned by Iran.

2. While Russia, or China may apply political pressure, I don't think they would be willing to get into a military confrontation. However, the possibility does exist. If it happens, it happens. I honestly believe it's time that we, as a nation, asserted ourselves a bit more, instead of bowing to every little country with a TV station.

3. I think they'd be a lot like Osama. Talk crap through a video camera.

4. We might be. I think that if it happens this time, a lot of things that we have come to take for granted, such as the UN, may be gone. Considering their ineffectiveness at most of what they undertake anyway, that would be no big loss.

5. If Iran becomes involved in the Iraq situation, it would no longer be a civil war type situation.

If we do become involved in Iran, then air strikes are the way to go. Keep troops out, and just bomb the known locations. No problem for our forces these days.

<font color=8fbc8f>If you re-read my posts in the CE forum, and read between the lines, you will find my "sole" position on the Iraq war. That position was to have US ground forces within strike range of Iran.

Take it or leave, that was and is still my gut instinct.

Fast forward to April, and you will have 5 (not 4 as proposed by The President) newly approved by congress for rotation "Active Duty" combat brigades on the ground in theater.

Currently on the ground that can easily conduct a battle hand off to the need to fend for themselves Iraqi forces include enough Screen Cavalry, and two heavy divisions to assault any objective within 600KM of Baghdad! There are enough "light fighters" to remain in theater to hold the country stable. That still leaves a heavy brigade in Korea, and two heavy brigades left in the US, along with two light brigades to protect the homeland. The Airborne and Marine RECON have Afghanistan stable.

Our shores have been protected by US Navy secrets for years, and they remain in place.

@Robert; how much silo maintenance have you seen being conducted recently?</font>

So do you think that 21,000 call-up of new troops is to defend the Iraq-Iran border if we do strike Iran? Or just backup troops for normal ops in Iraq?

Wow, I read this before I posted it, and it's turned out to be a bit of a ramble, but I can't be bothered to retype it, so here it is. For anyone with unshakeable faith in the US military machine and who considers an attack on their country's foreign policy to be an attack on themselves, it may be insulting, but there's no insult towards ordinary Americans intended by it, only the fools at the top.

Skim to the very last paragraph if you want the short version.

How would I stop Iran engaging in any hostile actions? Heavy EU military support to prevent any US strike. It'd make them feel less like the entire West is against them, and make them feel more like a Last Resort is called for, not to mention that I doubt the US would go through the EU troops just to hit Iran. Of course, it's not likely to be very good for the US, but frankly, I'd rather have a suck time for the US than a radioactive crater for everyone.

Iran is not insane enough to hand out nukes to terrorists, nor is it insane enough to use nuclear weapons except as a very last resort. What might make them feel that a "very last resort" is necessary would be, say, a US invasion.

Any US attack is going to face a fanatically devoted enemy defending it's homeland and people, on it's own playing field and with gear to rival what the US has deployed at the moment. Not to mention that the US soldiers are probably tired and demoralized after fighting a losing war in Iraq for the last few years, while the Iranian soldiers are eager and refreshed.

If Iran DOES get attacked, I imagine that at first they'll just turn aside the US attacks without any problems. Of course, if the US resorts to the big guns like tac nukes and such, you can believe in, at least at first, more direct support of anti-US terrorist groups, and then, if they can manage it, nuclear weapons, most likely directed against US troops in Iraq or off the coast of Iran. I believe Iran is likely going to construct nuclear weapons, and I don't mind it, if anything, it's going to make sure there's one less country the US is going to try to interfere with.

I don't think we're anywhere near a World War, Europe isn't going to interfere unless we're directly attacked, Russia and China are too busy counting their money, South America isn't close enough to any big trouble spots, Africa doesn't have the energy to get involved in anything big, at most, US policies are going to trigger a massive anti-US terror campaign if something insane like attacking Iran goes through, there may be a bit of fallout for the EU and the rest of the world, but for the most part it'll be between the US and those they've wronged.

If the US troops get ousted from Iraq and Iran moves in, that's the best thing that could happen. It may end up being a heavy-handed theocratic state for at least a few decades, but at least they might manage to clamp down on a lot of the sectarian violence. If there's no Iranian interference, one side is going to gain the upper hand and Iraq will be the site of a happy little genocide.

I hope the world sides with Iran if this thing comes to pass, should the EU, Russia or China do something as foolish as siding with the US, THEN we may have our World War as the Muslim world sees it as an all-out declaration of war(And rightfully so, it would be the EU supporting a war crime against a Muslim country after the war criminal has just finished molesting another Muslim country.).

But nothing like the old World Wars, it'd be entirely irregular. Terrorism and other demoralizing assaults on soft targets rather than serious damage.

Short version: The only way this is going to turn into a World War is if any sizeable chunks of the West supports a US attack on Iran. The best turn-out is if the US gets a bloody nose and the world turns against them(Not militarily, mind you.). It'll suck for the US, sure, but that way we all get to avoid glowing in the dark. The world isn't going to launch a military attack at the US, not even Iran is, but we may be very happy to make sure the US stays within the US and doesn't interfere with the rest of us. Thinking that the US is going to be the target of anything but terrorism is, in my mind, paranoia.

Felix, I've seen none, although I am homebound with these migraines. I don't get out unless I have to, and while I live about 2 miles from McConnell AFB, I haven't heard a lot of activity there, yet.

Heavy EU support to stop the US? Do you think they care much about the EU either? We, WE are nothing to them but infidels. Just remember, with what delivery systems Iran may have, EU is the closest target.

Personally, I hope they do try to blockade. Considering we can thread a stove pipe vent with a missile from 2,000 miles away, it should be interesting to see. If the EU tries to interfere, that will be the spark for a World War.

On the other hand, yeah, we could just pull out of Iraq, and any of the EU countries that want to try to blockade us, just remember, when the smoke clears, that it's the way you wanted it. Don't come crying to us. We'll be busy busting all illegals out, and militarizing our own borders, with anyone caught trying to get here, either as a refugee, or just your average everyday illegal shot on sight as a terrorist.

The problem with standing "proud" against a superior force is that pride doesn't accomplish anything. It just gets you shot up.

The logical course is to let Iran have nukes, eh? That's an interesting sentiment. I'm glad they live closer to you, than to me. What makes you so sure they won't supply terrorists with nuclear weapons, since they already supply them with guns, and explosives. Not to mention a place to hide out.

Personally, I live 2 miles from a potential target for a nuclear strike, and that's way too close to allow a lunatic to have possession of a weapon that could wipe my whole city off the map. But hey, let them point that thing in your direction, and see if you can show them all these posts supporting them will get them to decide that you're a decent enough chap, for an infidel.

While he may mention the US, and Israel by name, he doesn't really care about the EU any more than he does about us. After all, you aren't Muslim controlled countries either.

Oh please, the whole Islam thing is just a political ploy. Ahmadinejad and most of the high-ranking Iranian politicians are no more devout, fanatical Muslims than I'm the Pope of Mars. They talk the talk and galvanize the faithful to vote for them and stand strong against the infidels, then once the faithful are distracted they're like any other politicians. Possibly the president is one of the faithful, but he has little real power when it comes right down to it. The reason he's calling you infidels is because you're threatening his country with a military strike and because he needs his people's support in case you actually go through with it.

And the reason they don't care about the EU is because they think we're buddy-buddy with the US. If we show them that we stand up to injustice rather than just going along with our allies on everything, then they might have some respect for us. Plenty of Muslims are capable of getting along with those of other faiths.

We would, of course, not just show up unannounced. We'd tell the Iranians that we'd be willing to offer support if they wanted it, sell them military gear at a discount price and otherwise make sure they're as ready to repel a US invasion as they could possibly be. It wouldn't be a World War unless the US wanted to blow through EU forces, in which case, wow, the US would truly be left with no allies.

Please, pull out of Iraq, it'll be a bloody hellhole for a decade or two, if Iran doesn't interfere, in which case it'll be a bloody hellhole until they stabilize it with an iron fist, but in the end it'll be stable again. US interference and, I'm sorry to say it, military incompetence are just making the situation there worse.

Not sure who you're saying would be "standing proud" and "getting shot," here. The only ones I can think of in an invasion of Iran would be US soldiers, because the US would not be the superior force in that case. Outnumbered, equalled in training, equalled in arms, beaten in fanaticism and advancing into extremely defensible terrain.

Sure, the US could just drop nukes from afar, but, like I said, that IS exactly the thing that'll get you nukes back, even if you're just using "little" tac-nukes.

Iran is a country full of living people, they will not give nukes to people as utterly unpredictable as fanatical terrorists. Suppose a bunch of terrorists from one sect or another suddenly decided Iran wasn't devout enough after receiving Iranian nukes? Yeah, I wouldn't want to be Iran then either. Nor would I want to be Iran if Iranian nukes blew up a US city, because then we get into MAD territory, then the US has no reason not to drop the Big Bomb on Iran. Hell, if ANY nukes blew up in the US, then you know the US would flip out and fling nukes back at just about every Muslim country even vaguely suspected of having the technology, none of them are going to take the chance.

Iran is not a baseless terrorist group that can not receive retaliation for their actions, the very fact that they're a sovereign state forces them to tread carefully. If they ARE making nukes, it's weapons of last resort and self defense. It's not for offense, it's just to point at in case the US starts waving it's military dick at them.

It's no coincidence that this is all going on while there's a major concentration of US military forces in a neighbouring country.

1. Do you believe Iran needs to be stopped? If yes, How you YOU get them to stop without resorting to an attack?

2. If the US and or Israel attacks all the nuke sites in a surprise attack, what do you think the backlash will be from not only Iran, but other countries such as Russia and China?

3. If Iran is attacked, how do you think Iran would respond personally?

4. Do you believe we are dangerously close to a World War?

5. Would Iraq fall into a full civil war with Iranian forces coming over?

1) Yes, they are threatening worldpeace with their nuclear prgram, and they strive for islamic domination, need more reason ? How can they be stopped ? I guess the answer is, as always, in American hands.

2) Russia and China are paper tigers, they make a lot of noise, but are no match for the US.

3) How will Iran respond ? The usual shouting, shooting in the air, and flagburning response, like we got to know so well. The same question was raised when the US went to war with Iraq the first time. In the days when they invaded Kuwait, they ranked fifth on a worldwide military scale, and everyone was sure the US were going up against a very tough opponent, i don't think i need to step into details how that so called mighty army ended up.

4) Yes, but that's pretty much always the case.

5) Iraq is already in a civil war, how else would you describe what's going on right now ?

I strongly advise you to do some research on what Ahmadinejad shouted out in public, that is if you can find the time to pull your head out of your ass for a minute. First of all, there's the whole holocaust denial thing, which is clearly meant to start a fire, and then there's the pledge to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. And you're going to pretend Iran is not thinking offensively ? Their agressive stance is the US's fault ?

The pledge to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth has been discovered to be a translation error, before you start throwing out insults, I suggest that YOU do your research. I'd appreciate it if you kept a civil tone.

EDIT and a response to

China does have the power to destroy the economy of the US with a few transactions, I'd say that counts as being a match.

[ 02-11-2007, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

I would, but you're not making it easy, you're in complete denial. Let me just finish by saying that i'm really glad that Europe isn't lead by people who share your sentiments.

Be that as it may, as long as I present my opinions, whatever they are, in a civil way, I'd appreciate it if you returned the favour.

Additionally, one thing I'd like to add is that people are exaggerating the nuclear threat of Iran. A man-smuggled and carried nuclear weapon may just level a single city block or two, a horrific amount of damage and loss of human life, to be sure, but hardly the end of the world. Iran does not have ICBM's and no country that has them is going to aim them at the US unless it's a final retaliation before they go down.

Terrorists will not get something the power of the weapons used against Hiroshima/Nagasaki within the US, and even those failed to completely obliterate their targets. I suggest we keep a bit of perspective before we declare Armageddon to be on our doorstep. More people die from cancer and AIDS every day than one terrorist nuclear attack on the US would kill.

The US has the power to destroy the entire Chinese infrastructure by deploying one carrier battle group, both options are not likely to ever happen, because it's suicide either way. Try again.

Btw dude, you're easily offended, let me ease the pressure a little by saying that it's not personal on my behalf. I told you this before, but i thought i'd remind you, since you're becoming overly defensive again. I'm not your enemy dude. ;)

So your argument that China is weak is that it would be a MAD scenario if it used it's power against the US? What about the fact that the same holds true in the opposite direction? US attack on China is MAD as well?

Don't forget that China does have a military, in particular, they've been picking up a lot of sophistiated anti-ship missiles, probably just in case of that whole carrier group thing.

And destroying China would destroy the US, China produces so many things that the US needs and buys, the US does not have the production capacity to make up for the loss. Not to mention that with a competitor out of the way, the countries WITH that capacity would be able to ramp up their prices to whatever they pleased.

That's not even considering the fact that attacking China would get the US sanctioned to the stone age by the rest of the world, while China would just have been doing business and collecting on it's debts.

And please, knock it off with the condescending behavior. Telling me to pull my head out of my ass is an insult which suggests that my opinion is not born of actual opinion, but of ignorance. Just knock it off and we'll get along fine, I don't care if it's your wacky "hating everyone" attitude or because you're so hilariously irreverent, but if you want to have a debate with me, don't bring out the insults. This is not a matter of easily offended, it's a matter of principle. Trust me, if I was actually offended by your attitude, I'd simply leave, I don't have much anger to waste on internet arguments.

[ 02-11-2007, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

I take it my last post and yours crossed eachother, once again...don't take it so personal, heated topics produce heated arguments. I wasn't trying to insult you, merely attempting to spice up my point of view a little, i apologize for the way i did that, but i can't promise you i won't do it again in the future. Nothing personal mate, please forgive me.

<font color=8fbc8f>That additional call-up is what I'm pointing you towards. These are not "call-ups", these are seasoned active duty heavy brigades that are currently in re-fit. We have lost three of our soldiers, and one of our marines to join units that will re-deploy early. In support terms, the school house is critical short while supporting the force. In comparison, when I was a green-suiter here, we had 36 instructors,(32 soldiers, 2 marines, 1 British, 1 Canadian). Now, we have 16 soldiers, 1 marine, and 5 DA-contract-Instructors.

The tip of the spear is on the ground with "their" equipment. To complete the circuit, counter battery artillery, and artillery are on the ground as well.

There are three things the world does not and will not know which is kept US secret policy.

Where are the "Seawolfs and the Ohios"?

Who can issue them the orders?

What really happened to the "Kursk"?

As far as a heavy fight goes, we have had the opportunity to disassemble just about every version of equipment ever produced from Russia, and figure out what takes to make it stop.

As far as training goes, I have worked with Muslim armies, and they truly fail to comprehend the necessity of operations, and maintenance. The US has been training for a few years in the desert, and has a well seasoned DOD that has yet to be fully evaluated on the battlefield. I honestly hope the day of reckoning never comes, because the words of the Japanese still hold true, and the "Sleeping Giant" can be awoken easily enough.

I don't foresee a world at war, I foresee a US three echelon battle drill. The CAV will screen, the heavy armor divisions will destroy from afar, and the artillery will support. Counter battery will eliminate entire grid squares from the face of the earth, and the dreaded A-10s will wreak havoc on anything that moves. The Coalition will defend the rear guard, and the UN can take over 6 days, 5 hours, and 43 minutes after wards. The EU can run the blockade, and dilly out the sanctions. Once Iran is de-horned, the rest of that part of the world will be quite for a few years, and we all can get back to worrying about Korea.</font>

Oh yeah! The A-10 was a favorite of mine since I was little! Its got teeth and can take a beating too!

BTW, We saw a Raptor in flight at an airshow last year.. totally amazing. It did a 'stop' in the air, and just floated there hovering it looked like. SO cool. It has rotating thrusters, right? I have some video of it somewhere.. gave me goosebumps! :D

I salute you general Felix, spoken like a true commander once again.

About your Seawolves...since they keep moving around it's kinda hard to tell their exact locations, but their theater of operations is not such a big secret, so whatever i'm going to guess, i'm sure the answer is not far off. However, i'm not about to piss off SPECWARCOM and SUBLANT both at the same time, so i wisely keep my big mouth shut from here on. :D

I don't really throw my hat into the ring very often on big issues like this, mostly due to my timid nature, but there's a first time for everything I guess. First, in response to the questions posed in the original post.

1) No, Iran doesn't need to be stopped. It seems highly unlikely that, should they develop nuclear weapons, they would begin handing them out like candy to various terror groups. Plus, Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well, and it's not like they're the most peaceful nation in the world.

Also, as Iran is a signee of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this is relevant: However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.

2) If the US or Israel did that, I couldn't see anything good resulting from it. I can't predict what Iran's response would be, though I imagine it would involve a reduction in oil and natural gas sales, nor could I fully imagine China's, though I also guess it would be something with an economic impact, and a big one at that. Russia would certainly be none too pleased, and would also reduce their shipments of raw materials, as well as crank up their rhetoric. I could also see them covertly helping the Iranian nuclear program.

3) Iran would resist fiercely. Yes, their conventional army would get beaten in a somewhat quick manner, a month, maybe two of conventional warfare. After that though, there would be an insurgency that would make Iraq look like a stroll in the park. This is one of the few things I'm sure about on the whole issue, but if there is an occupation it would be bloody.

4) Whether or not we're close to a World War depends entirely on the leaders of our nations and whether they use all available channels and options. I believe that, when it comes down to it, most of them are sane people willing to listen.

5) I don't see how a full civil war is different from what they have now.

And now, to reply to various posters.
RTB: So, you think Iran would be dangerous with nuclear power stations, as they've asserted time and again that's what they're after? I'm also interested in how we could "assert ourselves a bit more" than we are now, especially in a military confrontation with other powerful nations. Also, as a note, selling weapons to a country disliked by the US, as Purple proposed the EU should do, is not going to spark off a conflict. Otherwise we'd have invaded Russia long ago (and Putin would begin laughing the minute he heard it).

johnny: Your faith in the US judgment is... worrying. The answer is in our hands as it always is? Please. Is that the same good judgment that's led to things like Vietnam? I also take issue with your dismissal of Russia and China. Are you forgetting about their nuclear arsenals? Or, if we're going to keep this conventional, the fact that a fight on their home soil would not only be a boon to the Russian military, but a disaster for the US military?

Felix: Yeah, I've heard about these "seasoned active duty heavy brigade." Like administration units of the Oklahoma National Guard, that's one of the ones I've heard about. So, does your fantasy battle drill account for the Iranian military having commanders with conventional war experience, as well as very dedicated and high-morale soldiers. And where will these Coalition troops come from? The countries that contributed to Iraq are, in general, not too happy about that now, and a majority are of the opinion that attacking Iran would be a BAD idea. Love the optimism though. And as an aside, are you insinuating that the US Navy somehow destroyed the Kursk? Because if so... wow.

[ 02-11-2007, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

I think this war is going to happen whether or not it needs to happen. And terrorism will increase. And then you'll attack the next nation. And get even more enemies. Bush doesn't really have an incentive to not start wars.

At times like these it's really nice to live at a nation with so little military significance that no even Russia bothered to assimilate it.

And here's an interesting continuation. Declaring war on Iran would, technically, free it from the NNPT and allow it to legally produce nuclear weapons:

"Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice."

So, what was the state of emergency when Iran thumbed their nose at the UN? Oh, I know, they want to do it, so they are going to. The rest of the world be damned. That wasn't the US they thumbed their nose at, it was the UN. Of course, the UN can be bought off any position, even the ones they apply themselves, Oil for Food?

I really don't think that it matters how well trained Iran's army is. The whole country could be turned into a parking lot with no troops on the ground, and no use of any nukes. How likely is it that they will maintain their state of morale when their president is shouting, "Die defeating the infidels" from hiding?

The comparison to Viet Nam is accurate. We have been in Iraq entirely too long, for much the same reason that we got beat up in Viet Nam. Instead of going in, and doing what needs to be done in a war, we are ■■■■■-footing around playing police. Why? Public Opinion. Well, I don't know what's going to happen for sure, but if we go to war in Iran, I hope we go to war. I think it's time that people the world over come to realize what it means to piss off one of the major world powers, because whether or not the EU, or the UN wants to acknowledge it, the US is one.

I suppose detonating one little nuke on the ground wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it didn't happen on US soil. Of course, I think this opinion is relative. Relative to what plane they put the bomb on, and where they crash the plane this time.

Let me explain this another way, and use a much more conventional example. A claymore mine is a nasty little device, pointed in one direction. However, a "bouncing Betty" is a whole other ball game. A claymore is placed, and directional. A "bouncing Betty" is a bit less powerful, but more effective since it blows up a couple of meters in the air, instead of on the ground. It has a kill diameter, as opposed to covering a relatively small cone of force.

The same applies to any bomb. If you detonate it in the air, instead of on the ground, it's kill ratio is increased dramatically. In any event, it's a really messed up thing to say that killing a few more US civilians is acceptable, as Purple implied:

Acceptable losses, so long as it's not you, or your family? "levelling a block or two", or "more people die of AIDS and cancer" is not an acceptable justification for allowing them technology they will use. I guess if they decided to target your home, it would be a different song and dance. However, with what's posted here, I know what my response would be to calls for help: "better a few civilians in your country than a negative world opinion". After all, as far as you're concerned, so long as you can still hope that brown nosing a terrorist sponsoring regime will spare you, it's all good. I wonder how many people thought the same way you did when the Soviet Union was building up territory? I wonder how many people dismissed Hitler as easily as you're dismissing Iran, or Japan, for that matter.

One little point about Japan as well. Saying that the nukes failed to achieve their objective, as horrifying as the use was, is totally incorrect. After all, Japan surrendered. As with any war, that was the objective. War isn't a pretty thing, it's downright ugly, as I've said before. The objective is to kill so many people on the other side that they surrender. If the UN is unhappy about what we do, or how we handle the situation, they can move to Iran, and see if they get the preferential treatment there they get here, and as for the EU, please...Which EU nations would send troops for this blockade?

Edit: One more thought that occurred to me. Use of a nuclear device on US soil by a hostile force would equal Armageddon. It doesn't matter if it killed 10, or 10,000, world opinion be damned, it's time to make some parking lots.

[ 02-11-2007, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

<font color=8fbc8f>@Man, My battle drills are the same and exact doctrinal drills I teach to my seasoned NCOs here at the school house.
Along with long range gunnery, short range marksmanship, and training management. Again, I served as an AC/RC (Active component to Reserve component) advisor my last watch. This plan does not compute any units that are not active duty. The media plays a big part in a lot of things. Especially to your unit, and the KY MP unit where the first Silver Star was awarded to a female soldier. And when I step on toes I do it for a reason. There will be NO National Guard units in this fight. They will remain in Iraq, and other locations where they are much more needed.

The Kursk you ask? I say to you, recall the date, and search for US Navy submarines that made an emergency repair in a friendly foreign port within three days of the event. Calculate that this sub can traverse several hundred kilometers of ocean per shift watch, and you might find your wow factor.

Well spoken Johnny. Those 'enforcers of policy' do exactly that! The guys in the control room surely do not need any pissing off!</font>

[ 02-11-2007, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

No state of emergency is required for nuclear power, only to be "freed" from the treaty, and so far there is NO PROOF that Iran has nuclear weapons. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

No troops on the ground AND no nukes? You seem to forget the fact that Iran has, y'know, anti-air defenses AND an air force, unlike Iraq. And any sort of long-range shelling/bombardment campaign would result in massive civilian casualties which definitely WOULD make Iran share whatever nuclear knowledge and materials it had with anyone who has a grudge against the US and it's allies.

Which isn't even getting started on the giant propaganda catastrophy it would be, or the thousands of people that would be joining Al Qaeda and similar organizations.

Public Opinion? Not quite, last I checked, pretty much EVERYONE wants the US out of Iraq and almost no one has any support for the war. US troops are still there because the Bush government doesn't want to lose face.

You know what's messed up? Accusing someone of calling civilian deaths "acceptable." When did I ever use that word? Never, please choose your words with more care in the future rather than accusing me of condoning the deaths of American civilians. It WOULD be horrific, terrible, an atrocity. But at the same time it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

If a nuclear attack was slated to kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat and camel named Bob in the US, then yes, I could understand a pre-emptive strike that would utterly level the possible attacker, doing the same level of damage in return. However, I cannot condone the use of nuclear weapons when the possible level of damage is so low AND there is still no proof that it's either planned or that the supposed attacker is capable of it!

It may sound unfeeling, but we need to keep perspective, sometimes the only way to make a just judgement is to be cold, to cut your emotional ties and accept the fact that X dead people is better than >X dead people. No matter whether those dead people are Iranians, Americans, Pygmies, Chinese, Israelis, Hindus, Buddhists or people who worship a camel called Bob. The moment we call one nationality or religious direction's lives worth more than another, we're on the way to utter catastrophy, especially when you involve nuclear weapons.


I would not think differently if they were planning to attack Europe, or even Denmark specifically(Let's not forget, however, that there is no proof of any plans yet, for all we know they could be planning to blow up the moon. If they're even planning to blow up anything.). Of course, if they were planning to attack Europe or Denmark I might get the hell out of the way. But I wouldn't consider it any more acceptable to launch a pre-emptive strike based on rumours and paranoia.

Plus, I think it's a bit exaggerating to compare Iran to Nazi Germany and it's leaders to Hitler. They're not engaged in genocide, nor have they ever declared that they want to be. As I said, note that the supposed quote about wanting to destroy Israel is a mistranslation. There is no support of this.

Furthermore, I find it extremely insulting that you are calling me a terrorist supporter. I do not support any terrorists or their actions, I just support that we at least know what's going on before we act. Remember Iraq? That was born of not having proper intelligence before attacking. If there is proof that Iran has a bunch of hidden ICBM's cleverly disguised as mosques or a MacGuyver-ish plan to smuggle a gigantic nuclear warhead right under the Pentagon by use of a rubber chicken, five donuts and a hermaphrodite prostitute named Bob, then I would support something to stop them. Until that point, no. Not even if there is proof that they just have nuclear weapons and can mount them on short-range missiles. Otherwise we'd have to bomb them just for having ordinary weapons, because hey, isn't Israel, one of our allies, startlingly close? Or all those US soldiers in Iraq?


You also seem to misread my posts with some frequency. I am not saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes failed to work. I'm not saying that the EU would help defend Iran, I'm saying that I'd LIKE to see it.

What I'm saying is that the actual DESTRUCTION caused by the two only serious military uses of nuclear weaponry in the history of Earth didn't even utterly destroy their targets. They caused horrific destruction, yes, but there were still survivors and assuming Iran wants to attack the US, there is no reason to suspect they could even reach that level of destruction. Or are you suggesting that the US would surrender?

Only if the US wanted to be destroyed. The US knows that even if there is no nuclear retaliation for using nuclear weaponry to level Iran, it would reduce the US to a third-world country. Utter economic block-off, terrorism rising to unheard-of levels and ecological destruction on a frightening scale. Let's not forget the complete loss of Mid-East oil for the US. As many supplies as the US might have at the moment, prices would rise to the point where the current US lifestyle is no longer possible.

I wonder if the US citizens would rather have revenge or their SUV's? I know what my guess is, but I'll leave you to consider it.

[ 02-11-2007, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

Yeah, I'm sure, with their superior air power, and superior anti-air technologies they'd snoop out and destroy all of the stealth bombers we could put in the air. Jeez, dude, when are you moving to Iran? I don't know what kind of stuff you're smoking, but I want some.

Study some history, then come back and talk to me about the comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam. We are making the same mistake in Iraq as we made in 'Nam. Instead of fighting a war, we are policing the population. Hey, it's a war, and people are going to die, sometimes innocent ones, but the idea is to make your enemy give up. We aren't doing that, because of public opinion. So and so would be outraged, so and so would too. Screw all the so and so's. Either fight the damn war, or bring the troops home. Let's not let insurgents in Iraq, wonder where some of those come from, hmmm, use our troops for target practice.

I'll just let that last paragraph speak for itself, along with this:

Ok, no I won't. A nuclear attack on the US, you said, and that xdeaths is better than >x deaths. Seems to me, you're saying that what should have happened after 9/11 was that the US should have laid down and licked it's nuts while the rest of the world laughed. We didn't, and now Pacifists R Us is having a major cow, because people are dying, in a war. So what. That is the nature of war.

You seem immensely cavalier about the deaths of people in other countries who aren't Americans.

The first US retaliation(Versus the Taliban and Al Qaeda) was perfectly permissible because it was retaliation, it destroyed an enemy and it ousted a hostile regime with a minimal loss of civilian life. However, paving/nuking Iran would be an attack on an entire country and it's civilian populace rather than against the regime and/or military. Lying down and taking it would have resulted in more civilian deaths on US soil and around the world. Nuking/bombing Iran will only exacerbate the violence and dying, rather than causing a temporary spike in deaths for the purpose of lowering long-term fatalities.

After 9/11, almost the entire world was crying with you. We were your allies because you were fighting a just, careful, honourable and(As far as it is applicable when killing other people.) humane, war. Right now, the world would laugh if you get knocked down because you're posturing, flexing muscles you don't have and trying to bully around lesser countries. THERE IS NO PROOF OF NUCLEAR WEAPONRY. There is proof of nuclear power, and Iran is, according to international agreements, entitled to that.

Additionally, the moment you start attacking enemy civilan populations/targets on purpose, for demoralizing reasons, for total annihilation or because you say they're to blame for what their government did, then you are, if you're going to be consistent, permitting terrorist attacks against your own civilian targets.

Dead Iranian civilians do not make dead US civilians magically return to life.

Finally, regarding the "war" in Iraq, it's not indistinguishable from a police action. There is no clearly marked enemy to strike, no definite enemy positions devoid of civilians to annihilate, only a faceless enemy intermingled with the civilian populace. An enemy that needs to be ferretted out with care and investigation, rather than force of arms.

PS: I hate to say it again, but READING COMPREHENSION. I never made the Iraq/Vietnam comparison.

EDIT: Additionally, it may be worth noting that if it was proven that Iranian nukes DID destroy something in the US, I would completely support whacking their regime and razing their nuclear enrichment facilities and power plants, but I would not support slaughtering their innocent civilians.

[ 02-11-2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

You seem to take issue with countries thumbing their noses as the UN. No, wait, it seems you just have a problem with it coming from a country that isn't the US. I remember a particular incident, almost four years ago now, where they disregarded the UN's ruling completely.

I agree with Purple. Making their country into a cratered wasteland without nukes would not only benefit nobody, but be quite impossible. It would only be a travesty, not the smallest part of which would be the insane loss of civilian life.

So, how could we make a more effective "war" against Iraq? We already did make war against them. It was over in a couple of weeks, and now we're doing a police action to help them stand on their own, which to me is like punching a man out of the blue, breaking his nose, and helping him home. Do you expect him to forgive you for your uncalled-for attack?

Your nationalism is just a little worrying. You think they should learn just what it means to piss off the US? That already happened too. I think they called it "Shock and Awe." What you have in mind, with the absolute bombing of civilian infrastructure and destruction of populations, would be called a "war crime."

Is it such a bad thing to allow the Iranians nuclear power stations? And while we're at it, please remember that there is another country that practices a more extreme version of Islam which also has nuclear weapons. That country is called Pakistan, and boy was it a hellstorm when they developed it! They totally incinerated their old rival India, and then... oh wait, that didn't happen.

Felix: I'm not exactly sure how most of what you posted relates to what I did, since it seems you rambled off some military jargon in an attempt to confuse me, so I'll let that stuff lie. However a couple of things come to mind.
1) Okay, granted, there won't be any National Guard units in this theoretical war. If that's so, then it raises a few more questions. Such as, who will be providing the manpower to occupy Iraq, unless we pour every single NG unit in, and where will the manpower for this strike on Iran come from? There isn't enough strength there to make war on an entirely new country, so are you suggesting we should bring in troops from elsewhere?

Also, I find your implication that the US Navy destroyed a Russian nuclear submarine in a time of peace insulting, both to my intelligence and to the Russian military.

Edit: This article was just brought to my attention. It's relevant both concerning the US Navy and Iran.

[ 02-11-2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

<font color=8fbc8f>Where do you gather your information from, CNN? The last press conference, many nations tell us, this is not the time to pull troops out of Iraq. Our most politically aligned allies in the region have made it quite clear of recent, if we withdraw now, not only will Iraq turn to turmoil, but the organized terror camps will no longer have an immediate target, and will seek one elsewhere.

Also, think and study military strategy, and strategic planning. Without conducting the crayola draw, I will give you some food for thought.

1. After WWII the US remained in Germany. Why?
2. The Berlin wall came down the Fall of 1989, yet the US is still in Germany!
3. YOU and OTHERS like minded of YOU, might want us out of Iraq, and would say whatever it takes to make President Bush look bad. But, refer to what a strategically placed US controlled "GREEN ZONE" does for a force that could mount a complete heavy offensive attack from said location into a target that is only the next piece of sand up the road!
4. The President called for a few extra units to patrol the border, while the current guys intensify their training of the Iraqis. Congress, NOT President Bush, told the CoS (Chief of Staff) to alert 5 Active Duty Heavy Combat Brigades to step up their deployment time line, and be on the ground NLT!!!!. I do not know any other way to say this, but these 5 Units are not going to be riding in wheeled vehicles looking for an IED, these guys are bringing their "Heavy" equipment with them. They are not activated guardsmen like others here have pointed towards, these are soldiers that are going to be mad, separated from their families again, and will be ready to unload a can of whoop-ass in a matter of moments.

Crayola draw segment:
A. There are two ways to make an Army mad. 1. Deploy them for months on end into a foreign land and train the hell out of them, then unleash them (1991).
2. Send them into a hostile environment for 12 month rotations, place the third rotation on the ground and redeploy the strike force early, as in less than 6 months after last rotation, then unleash them (Spring 2007 that criteria will be met)!

I am not a politician, I am a soldier, a leader, a trigger puller, a trained and skilled killer, a trainer that enhances and hones the skills of others to be "Technicians of Violence". Like it or not, come this Spring, there will be enough maddened soldiers, equipment, and logistics to assault any objective within 600KMs of Baghdad, and enough trained rear guard to protect the force! All approved by the current United States Congress!

I find it ironic that President Jimmy Carter who has done so much since he left office, (2002 Nobel Peace Prize) that the USS Jimmy Carter, A "Seawolf" class submarine is currently out of home port! This is what makes my wow factor thump!</font>

Is that so ? There is next to nothing known about what happened underneath the surface of the oceans, but you can be sure that the cold war wasn't just cold in the world of submarines. We'll never know the truth about it, because the Russians would never admit losing a sub in an assault, especially not when the sub was poking around in places he shouldn't be. Same goes for the Americans and everyone else. Every time you hear about an accident with a submarine, i have a gutfeeling they don't tell us the whole truth. The deep blue see is the only place where you can sneak up on a target unseen and unheard, assuming that this never happened in times of peace would be slightly naive.

But tell us how you're *really* feeling.

Ok, in all seriousness. We have the *capability* to do this, but the question remains- is it wise? Is it wise to have our hands in one too many pots? Furthermore, the talk of so-called "maddened soldiers" is troubling. If what you're saying is true, it scares the hell out of me. Anger leads us to make mistakes. You know, like "friendly fire" and killing civilians. The horrid stuff that makes us look bad to the world. So perhaps you shouldn't talk about it like it's a good thing- it isn't!

Is that so ? There is next to nothing known about what happened underneath the surface of the oceans, but you can be sure that the cold war wasn't just cold in the world of submarines. We'll never know the truth about it, because the Russians would never admit losing a sub in an assault, especially not when the sub was poking around in places he shouldn't be. Same goes for the Americans and everyone else. Every time you hear about an accident with a submarine, i have a gutfeeling they don't tell us the whole truth. The deep blue see is the only place where you can sneak up on a target unseen and unheard, assuming that this never happened in times of peace would be slightly naive. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=8fbc8f>To add to what Johnny has so well said, the US Navy did openly confirm there were 'TWO' US submarines "over-watching" the Russian drills. One of those submarines made an un-scheduled "Port-of-Call" into a friendly port. Sources kinda get astray from their, but the words used were similar to "with the language conversion, we did not really say repair, we said refit". The reality is only known by a chosen few, who like others, will take it to their grave.</font>

Interesting article, Man. Possibly relevant as well. The implications, however, abound. There will undoubtably be civilian casualties when nuclear sites are destroyed, and those are acceptable losses. Even the article that Man posted mentions the possibility of nuclear weapons. So even the "anti-American military" people are willing to speculate that Iran has nuclear weapon capability.

Purple, Man brought up the Viet Nam reference, however, it is, as you pointed out, as good an analogy as any. We lost in Viet Nam because of the exact same things we are doing in Iraq. Policing the population. There were no decisive military victories in 'Nam, because we would take hill 17 today, give it back tomorrow, and then take it again. What a way to fight a war.

Bombing the whole country to a parking lot would indeed be a war crime, but bombing the enire political structure, and the nuke testing sites into oblivion wouldn't be. Again, there will be civilian losses, but unless the leaders just stand out in front of their capital building and get shot, there is very little way to avoid that. I believe the phrase is "Fortunes of War".

The other thing is, what is the impetus behind going to war with Iran? Is it just "flexing muscle we don't have"? Whatever. You are probably correct. Iran is the real world power, and all the rest of us should just bow down and kiss Allah's Holy Pink Ass. After all, if Iran decided to, they could take over the world in 5 minutes. At least, that's the impression I'm left with, reading the dissent.

Edit for a spelling error.

[ 02-11-2007, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

Not to mention that there's a difference between "mad and itching for a fight" and "mad and itching to shoot their officers."

US troops have not been treated well or had fun adventures in Iraq. I doubt their morale is totally pumped.

I hate to point out the similarities.

You seem to have a fascinating obsession with misreading my posts.

I never said that we should all bow to Iran, what I'm saying is that attacking Iran is going to be a war crime, not to mention attacking them for doing something which there is no evidence of them doing. What's next? Executing accused murderers and rapists before they're proven guilty? This is exactly the same thing, except on a much larger scale.

And yes, the US does not have the muscle it believes it does. Your vaunted "carrier groups" are not invincible. Your air force cannot destroy everything, nor is it indestructible. Your ground forces are depleted, demoralized and have been beaten in almost every conflict they've been in since World War 2. Public support for the war is almost non-existent and the world despises your government and your policies.

If Iran is proven to have nuclear weapons AND proven to have intentions of passing them to terrorists or fitting them on ICBM's and using those ICBM's, action should be taken. Until then, no action should be taken, and if it is, then it should not be done with civilian casualties as "acceptable losses."

"Acceptable losses" are a big part of why you have a problem with terrorism and a major insurgency in Iraq.

But tell us how you're *really* feeling.

Ok, in all seriousness. We have the *capability* to do this, but the question remains- is it wise? Is it wise to have our hands in one too many pots? Furthermore, the talk of so-called "maddened soldiers" is troubling. If what you're saying is true, it scares the hell out of me. Anger leads us to make mistakes. You know, like "friendly fire" and killing civilians. The horrid stuff that makes us look bad to the world. So perhaps you shouldn't talk about it like it's a good thing- it isn't! </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=8fbc8f>No it is not a good thing. I am not talking about hey, lets go for a stroll in the park. I'm saying hey, Lock and load, weapons free, air is Yellow, ground forward of grid line FQ435725 is Red, move out! Anger? Maddened soldiers? Controlled anger, within a person who is mad, that is fully trained, will 'Kill'. ~That's a period. War is about killing. Soldiers are an instrument of war. Weapons are tools that a soldier uses to kill the enemy in time of war. A chef who can hone a knife to slice the meat from the bone is well trained in that culinary skill. To load a weapon, place it on fire, and shoot another human being is a trained soldier skill. A soldier takes an oath, and within that oath, he swears that he will follow the orders of The President of The United States, the officers appointed over him, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and it ends with a binding of according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

However, now that the press is leaking it to the public, this strike may never come!</font>

To put pressure on the Soviets.
To continue putting pressure on the Russians.
Well then, it's a good thing he's done so much wrong stuff that we're not liars, isn't it? And it's usually a good idea for previously occupied territory to be pacified, isn't it? I don't think that either Iraq or Afghanistan come even close to being called that.
By "mad" do you mean mad at the enemy, or mad at the administration who sent them there and took them away from their families? This is a very important distinction.

Also known as the "not bad" way.
This is known as the "Man it sucks to be an officer now, doesn't it?" way.

Tjohnny: The above was from the book Kremlin Rising. Yes it was a poorly covered disaster made worse by the poor reaction time of the rescue crews. However, it was not an American attack, unless the Americans have somehow developed invisible submarines that give off nothing to be detected by sonar.

Trobertthebard: The mention of nuclear weapons in that article was a worst-case scenario just if you wanted to get really worried about what they could do to our attack fleet. They don't need them to take down carriers.

So, would you define a nuclear testing site as a nuclear power plant? With the centrifuges they have, it would take nearly a century to enrich uranium to the point where it could be called weapons-grade material. It takes much less time to enrich it to be used for power, which they are entitled to.

Again, the question: Where would all these troops come from if we're going to attack Iran? If such a thing were to happen, we would need to take troops from elsewhere, from places which haven't even cooled down yet.

[ 02-11-2007, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

<font color=8fbc8f>There are two things I am unclear of.

1. Why do you all keep asking about officers? Lt's lead within their platoon, on the ground. CPT's lead their companies from within, on the ground. LT.COL's lead their battalions from within, on the ground. Col's lead their brigades from within, on the ground. At the two star level, division commanders observe from the air, and plot from a map board. What I mean by from within and on the ground. Tankers have tanks, each PL has a tank that fights with his platoon. Each CO has a tank, and usually fights with a platoon, or stays in the center for C&C. Each Bn CO has a tank, and usually fights from the hip of the lead company, or is centered within his Bn. Each Bde CO has a tank, and usually C&Cs from center mass of his brigade.

Infantry is similar with Bradleys or Styrkers.

The current army fights at the brigade level.

2. Troop strength. It's in the paper!</font>

Because if this attack on Iran does happen, those officers will be dying in droves from negligence or accidents. First it'll be the Lt's from within their platoon, on the ground. Then the Cpt's in the companies, then the Lt. Col's at the battallion, and the Col's in the brigade. Seriously, I'm not a total moron when it comes to military organization. I even understand concepts like commissioned officer and non-commissioned officer! And the commissioned ones are going to be dropping like flies.

That's because you confuse what happens at the administrator level with what happens in the field. Field commanders know what they are doing, while the President may not.