| Author | Comment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Cafu07 |
Will Bush attack Iran before the end of his term? |
Lead | |||
|
Posts: 1834 05-22-08 1:40 PM |
Bush is saying that no attack is planned, but the rhetoric is starting to sound very similar to the crap that came out before Iraq.
Will he or won't he? Several congressmen are already threatening impeachment if he goes through with an attack. |
||||
|
|
|||||
 Fishbeak |
#1 | ||||
|
Posts: 2269 05-22-08 1:42 PM |
No. I don't think he'll attack.
I do think he'll ratchet up the rhetoric enough to make it a campaign issue though.
Borofin's bitch
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Snaille |
#2 | ||||
|
Posts: 266 05-22-08 2:12 PM |
I don't think he has enough political clout left to do something like this.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Afmo |
#3 | ||||
|
Posts: 2305 05-22-08 2:14 PM
|
well, i would hope that the powers that be have some sort of contingency plan of attack readied, but do i think he's actively planning an attack? no...
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Snaille |
#4 | ||||
|
Posts: 266 05-22-08 2:27 PM |
And what would we attack them with? The Cub and Boy Scout National Reserves? Isn't out military stretched too thin now?
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cafu07 |
#5 | ||||
|
Posts: 1834 05-22-08 2:39 PM |
Snaille wrote: I assume the plan would be bombing without ground troops.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Zifnab |
#6 | ||||
|
Posts: 2603 05-22-08 2:51 PM |
Cafu, how about joining the slighty less farfetched thread about the possibility of real Social Security reform.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#7 | ||||
|
Posts: 2867 05-22-08 3:08 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Agree with Cafu.
Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Borofin |
#8 | ||||
|
Posts: 3070 05-22-08 3:20 PM Community Member |
I pray to God we do and the sooner the better. I see only two ways of stopping the Mullah Bomb. We somehow take out most of the Iranian leadership all at once,
and hope that a more sane element takes control in the aftermath period and halts the work, or we attack and destroy every known part of the nuclear program
and destroy the quods and revolutionary guard barracks and facilites.
I think we are likely to try a naval blockade before any of this happens. By the way, I heard some interesting info. Apparently the Iranians are stockpiling tens of millions of barrels of oil on a dozen or so tankers and nobody outside of Iran knows for sure why. If Bush decides not to stop them I have high hopes McCain will because he seems to recognize the stakes. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#9 | ||||
|
Posts: 2867 05-22-08 3:43 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Borofin wrote:Dumb move. Would jack up the price for oil all over the world. By the way, I heard some interesting info. Apparently the Iranians are stockpiling tens of millions of barrels of oil on a dozen or so tankers and nobody outside of Iran knows for sure why. They've done so in the past. We stockpile in our strategic reserves and so do other countries. Reason is simple - uncertainty. Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Borofin |
#10 | ||||
|
Posts: 3070 05-22-08 3:56 PM Community Member |
Cin, if we let that govern our decisions we will become powerless and sitting on our hands permanently, not just re Iran. Oil traders look for any excuse at
all to profit from spikes these days. There is probably a $50 emotional premium right now.
I understand that the current stockpiling by them is unprecedented, at least the scale of it is. I don't know if we have our minesweepers forward deployed these days, but if there are some domestic based you can get a pretty good clue that something is happening if they disappear. We have much improved mine capability now than we did in the 80's when Iran was mining the Gulf and we also have an enormously improved surveillance with the various pilotless aircraft. I'm quite sure we can sink most of the Iranian navy and wreck their naval bases inside 24 hours and take out most of their shore batteries too. if some escape we can shoot down the missiles if they manage to get some off. As for impeachment over the President acting as Commander in Chief in the fulfillment of his duties doing what he decided is in the nation's interest...I would then fully support arrests of congress members for treason and upon conviction, hangings. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Feydakin Rainsong |
#11 | ||||
|
Posts: 5098 05-22-08 4:05 PM Wholly Shi'ite |
I guess the question is, what does Bush gain by attacking Iran and leaving that legacy to the next President? If it were some kind of glorious victory he was
after, he would have attacked Iran years ago under the guise of knocking out two of the three "Axis of Evil" powers in one shot. Hell, it would
probably help him out with the aftermath of Iraq, because either it would have reduced the insurgents and support entering Iraq from Iran, or worst case he
could attribute the quagmire over there to the fact that we're involved in two neighboring countries simultaneously and say that's why he needs more
time to get things in order. On top of that, let's say he does attack Iran just for the "glory" of it... if he leaves office while the war is
ongoing, it'll be his successor remembered for winning. While maybe he'd want that if he were sure it was at least a Republican following him, I think
it wouldn't be worth it to be remembered in history as that guy that went into Iran and made a mess of things... he'll already be remembered for doing
that in Iraq.
As far as just leaving a big mess for an incoming Democrat to have to clean up... he may be dumb, but he's not so unpatriotic as to screw over the country like that just to spite Hillary or Obama. I think he'd probably be reviled by everyone in the country (except maybe Borofin) were he to do that. It's not even useful as an economic stimulus.... history shows that wars provide an initial boost in production, followed by steep and/or prolonged recessions (and history is repeating, or about to). I read a good article yesterday, that suggests the economic numbers are being worked, and have been for a long time, and that he economy isn't quite as tenacious as we're being told it is: So really, what would the motivation be for starting a war that he couldn't possibly finish during the remainder of his term? If there were some kind of provocation, maybe, but so far as I know there's nothing that qualifies... not even as far-fetched as the WMD in Iraq debacle.
"Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression.... is our lives."
Have you met Tyler Durden? 
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Borofin |
#12 | ||||
|
Posts: 3070 05-22-08 5:34 PM Community Member |
There is already plenty of justification for war with Iran. At this time I can't think of any other country who has earned it more.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#13 | ||||
|
Posts: 2867 05-22-08 6:33 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
You're not getting it Boro. It wouldn't just be us who would be hurt if oil stopped flowing from the Gulf. You think the rest of the world wouldn't
roundly condemn us and possibly break off trade if we were responsible for shutting down the flow of oil? If you don't care what the rest of the world
thinks about us and our policies, you're too far gone.
I'm glad you have such a glowing picture of what you think we can do militarily vs Iran. Unfortunately, I just don't see it being the cakewalk that you describe. Iran has steadily been improving their ground-to-air missile capabilities as well as their ground-to-ship stockpiles. As I mentioned in another thread, they have started producing and deploying large amounts of mobile Silkworm missiles. While I'm sure we could put up a good defense against them, all it takes is one lucky strike and we would be minus an aircraft carrier, destroyer, frigate or cruiser. Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Borofin |
#14 | ||||
|
Posts: 3070 05-22-08 7:03 PM Community Member |
Of course we will be condemned publically, and thanked privately. The usual. Iran would not succeed in stopping transit of other producers. We would do
everything to ensure that. It might take a week but it would be done and Iran's economy would collapse quickly without oil revenue and if we had to we
could start bombing in a nice circle around their only refinery as a hint of things to come.
As far as ground to air, you do know that Syria had pretty much the most up to date systems the Russians make and how they fared with the recent Israeli attack on their reactor? I'm quite sure the Israelis had some helpful advice and gear to do it. Ship losses are a risk of course but we mustn't let that paralyze us. We have spent billions and billions and decades of research for just this thing. The navy is up to it. The insane Iranian governement cannot be allowed nuclear weapons. I think there is ample evidence that Iran will not stop nuke development no matter the size of the carrot offered. There have been years of fruitless negotiations which served little purpose other than to give them more time. The ONLY way to stop them is what I have suggested here and the least destructive option (which is why I think it's more likely) could be a blockade that is limited to naval and shoreline actions. There are NO good options left. We have to choose if we are going to pretend that talks and negotiations have a chance right up until they are producing weapons, or we stop them and accept the consequences of what it took to stop them. Sometimes in history you have to choose between the horrible and the unacceptable. "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half." (Churchill) |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Klark |
#15 | ||||
|
Posts: 778 05-22-08 7:05 PM |
Borofin wrote: It took much more to take action against Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think there is enough political or military resources to attack Iran beyond
simple air attacks. And overt air attacks would only flame the world more.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#16 | ||||
|
Posts: 4422 05-22-08 7:16 PM BANNED |
There are NO good options left.
Please list what you consider the bad options to be. That way sane people will know the right course of action. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Borofin |
#17 | ||||
|
Posts: 3070 07-05-39 3:11 PM Community Member |
I don't think most people are aware of how many attacks on Americans and Americans murdered that Iran is directly responsible for since 1979.
Military resources would not be the problem, our pathetic political class would be though. "Flame the world more". /laugh And if Chavez responds with a temporary boycott of US oil exports then we should respond by blockading all of his oil exports until he relents. The venezuelans would tear him to pieces in short order for utterly destroying their economy. The Navy easily has the resources to handle Iran and Venezuala at the same time, and much more. Covert actions? I did offer that if we could take out the Iranian leadership and be willing to sit and watch what happens afterwards then that is another option. Klark, what do you think is going to stop Iran? Or do you think we should accept it. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Kayso Gnomehater |
#18 | ||||
|
Posts: 4422 05-22-08 7:26 PM BANNED |
You'll have to explain to the non-paranoid crowd what we're supposed to be stopping them from.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#19 | ||||
|
Posts: 2867 05-22-08 7:59 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Sorry Boro, but it has already been proven that our Navy would have a very tough time against the Iranians. You are thinking for too conventially when it
comes to our advanced capabilities vs Iran's willingness to sacrifice. Please review the military exercise Millennium Challenge 2002 for more information. The Wiki does have one mistake though - the
"Red" force wasn't Israel, it was Iran.
Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Fishbeak |
#20 | ||||
|
Posts: 2269 05-22-08 8:55 PM |
I'm surprised China has not been directly considered here.
Who is Iran's number one customer? China. If we shut off China's oil I dunno... they might get pissed. I would guess at the least they will not thank as Boro asserts. We've covered this ground a dozen times here. I'll toss out my normal post on the subject. You all (well for now it's just Boro but there are usually a few others who line up behind him with the naval blockade and it'll be over real quick line) are thinking way too conventionally. First when we attack Iran Iraq's shiite community will shit a collective brick. That guy - al Sadr - who is playing nice now. Probably not so much after a strike on Iran. So Iraq will be thrown into chaos right after we open a third front in this war on whatever. How about Syria? Turkey? Pakistan? How do each of those governments react? Each plays a key role in the region. None can be taken for granted. While a gloomy assessment I can see Hezzbulloh attacking Israel, Turkey using the distraction to go into Iraq again, and Pakistan's new government cutting ties with the US. I don't Syria would be foolish enough to do anything overt you can bet they would step up covert action against both Iraq and Israel. Then what about all the moderate arab states? Egypt? Jordan? How does the populace react? Do the moderate arab states fall to extremists? How about SA? Does SA finally fall to the terrorists it's been breeding for generations? A strike on Iran will be met with worldwide condemnation. Worldwide. It wouldn't surprise me to see economic sanctions leveled. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of retaliation from China. Probably economic, not military. Or maybe they decide there is no better time to invade Taiwan. Russia would certainly use an attack on Iran as a chance to try and puff up Putin's ego. I am sure they would do something to try to re-establish their influence, what I don't know. Then move past nation states acting. We're in the age of asymmetrical warfare. Anyone believe we wouldn't see suicide bombings in America? Think terrorism would go up or down worldwide? I think it's reasonable to assume a large spike in terrorism worldwide and mostly aimed at American targets. So the way I see it if we strike Iran we lose Iraq. We will most likely lose a number of allies; Pakistan, Egypt top my list. We will receive worldwide condemnation, probably accompanied by sanctions of some sort. We will be isolated. Other countries will capitalize on our strategic blunder; China, Russia, Syria. We get weaker, our enemies get stronger. And the very best part I left for my last point - it's too late. Nothing short of glassing Iran or a full scale invasion and occupation will stop them if they don't want to be stopped. Since we will not do either we're fucked. We've been fucked for literally years. Since the day the first American stepped into Iraq. We opened this door for Iran. Making a nuclear weapon isn't that difficult. I learned how to do it in my sophomore year of college. It just takes the right equipment. The equipment can be hidden, re-purchased if destroyed. We're not going to stop them, it's was too late the moment they realized we had overplayed our hand in Iraq.
Borofin's bitch
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Cinabre |
#21 | ||||
|
Posts: 2867 05-22-08 9:08 PM Big Blue Cat in Warrior Garb |
Good post Fish. I didn't bother mentioning China as I figured anyone who's been around here a while would remember what's already been said about
this. Might have been when Boro was absent for a while.
Many times in battle, one might lose their mind, their life, their soul. What makes them a Marine is that they entered combat knowing the price they might pay, and chose to enter it anyway. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
fatesdefiance |
#22 | ||||
|
Posts: 3065 05-22-08 9:18 PM Community Member |
Fishbeak wrote: If you're at all correct in the rest of your suppositions, which you may be, Iraq had not a damn thing to do with it. You think if Iraq had remained
under Saddam that Iran would have put its nuclear ambitions in neutral? Hell no. We didn't open crap for Iran.
Hunter Tarryn Valewalker -- Twisted Fates
(Prexus - Retired) Nightshade Tarryn Valewalker -- Kingfisher Brigade EQ2 - Unrest Tarryn of Dale, Hunter -- Dies Irae LotRO - Meneldor |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Fishbeak |
#23 | ||||
|
Posts: 2269 05-22-08 9:25 PM |
If we didn't open the door for Iran Fates why didn't they start building a bomb prior to our invasion of Iraq? They did it only after we removed Saddam
and committed our military to an occupation of Iraq.
I don't Iran is stupid enough to commit an act of war. But they're also not stupid enough to stop their nuclear program until after they test their first bomb. Like I said, we're fucked. We'll more precisely those in the range of their missiles are fucked.
Borofin's bitch
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
fatesdefiance |
#24 | ||||
|
Posts: 3065 05-22-08 9:35 PM Community Member |
Fishbeak wrote:Purely a matter of coincidental timing, in my opinion. I'd lay odds their program was in full, albeit quiet, swing for the past decade or more. If it wasn't us they were trying to bluster to, it would be Iraq (and also us, less directly.) I don't Iran is stupid enough to commit an act of war. But they're also not stupid enough to stop their nuclear program until after they test their first bomb. Like I said, we're fucked. We'll more precisely those in the range of their missiles are fucked.I agree. I just don't blame that on us. This was going to happen all along. In my opinion, that's one reason we need to succeed in Iraq. With a relatively stable Iraq, particularly one still partly under our aegis, Iran will have too much to worry about in maintaining the status quo to do something truly stupid where we're concerned.
Hunter Tarryn Valewalker -- Twisted Fates
(Prexus - Retired) Nightshade Tarryn Valewalker -- Kingfisher Brigade EQ2 - Unrest Tarryn of Dale, Hunter -- Dies Irae LotRO - Meneldor |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Snaille |
#25 | ||||
|
Posts: 266 05-22-08 9:37 PM |
Iran should be more worried about Israel than us.
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Snaille |
#26 | ||||
|
Posts: 266 05-22-08 9:51 PM |
Fishbeak wrote: It is hard to make them. Uranium bombs, easy to make, very hard to get materials for. Plutonium, very hard to make and harder to get materials for. Equipment hard and expensive to obtain. Refinement a high tech process that takes equipment, money and brains. There's nothing anywhere in the chain of production a nuclear weapon that's easy. What does make it a lot easier, however, is having a healthy export business, say, in oil, and an "Uncle Kim" that would be more than happy to trade brains and materials for $. I wouldn't be surprise to learn that Iran was, or is very close to being, self proficient in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. |
||||
|
|
|||||
