Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: 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!

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!

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: 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.

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. [/QUOTE]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.

[robertthebard]

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 ]

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: 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!

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.

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Angry Muslim: There will undoubtably be civilian casualties when the Evil Imperialist Pigs are destroyed, and those are acceptable losses.

I hate to point out the similarities.

Originally posted by robertthebard: 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.

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.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: quote: Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: 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!

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! [/QUOTE]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!

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: 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?

To put pressure on the Soviets.

2. The Berlin wall came down the Fall of 1989, yet the US is still in Germany!

To continue putting pressure on the Russians.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

Also known as the "not bad" way.

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)!

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

Tjohnny:

Commissioned in 1994, the Kursk was one of the most fearsome weapons in the modern world, an Oscar-II class submarine designated K-141 that stretched the length of one and a half football fields and towered five stories tall. Designed to destroy aircraft carriers, the Kursk left port in August 2000 armed with eighteen torpedoes and twenty-three SS-N-19 Granit cruise missiles. But something with terribly wrong with one of the torpedoes. At 11:28 a.m. on August 12, an explosion ripped through the bow of the boat, followed by a second, more powerful blast two minutes and fifteen seconds later...

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 ]

[Felix The Assassin]

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!

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

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.

[robertthebard]

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.