U.S. is preparing a war with Iran

[MystikWizard]

Nit picking Kali. You know if missiles are launched there will be follow up with troops on the ground. An injured Iran is sitting on too much oil to leave it to chance. Get real about the reasons behind this concern over the middle east in general.

One word: OIL

Precisely. As if Iraq was really about anything other than oil, revenge for Daddy, and our business interests.

Like I said before, when you control the World's oil, you have the World's economy by the balls. And we've seen that first hand here in the U.S. what soaring prices can do.

Bush got what he wanted in Iraq and now the major fuel companies all were awarded no-bid contracts in Iraq, the third largest oil supplier in the World.

And the same is in store for Iran, the second largest oil supplier in the World.

It still amazes me that after what Bush has done with Iraq, that people can't see the Endgame, like you laid out, LaloGS. I guess we have to draw a picture for some people.

Moving towards Energy Independence is just too novel a concept for Bush to pursue.

 

[kallipolis]

Nit picking Kali. You know if missiles are launched there will be follow up with troops on the ground. An injured Iran is sitting on too much oil to leave it to chance. Get real about the reasons behind this concern over the middle east in general.


Your opinion is noted.

The United States and The West does not have the wherewithal to take on a 1 million man Iranian army.
Nor does The United States and The West have sufficient foot soldiers, to successfully invade and occupy Iran.

Iraq and Afghanistan are already over stretching the resources of the United States and The West.

The only solution short of diplomatic success is to destroy the Iranian nuclear "power" sites, by way of an aerial campaign. Total destruction of the sites will not be necessary. Putting the plants out of action, will be sufficient until the next time.

Most of Iran's crude oil is shipped to China and Japan. Both these countries are sufficiently influential in the world to ensure that there will be no ground invasion of Iran.
Thus there is no justification for "grabbing" Iranian oil.

I would further add that China's influence on the United States economy, and strategic partner relationship with The West in dealing North Korea, will ensure that any bombing campaign of Iran will be very limited.

Of course I am supporting the diplomatic route, in the hope that with Israel and The United States playing bad cop, we might see The EU succeed in persuading Iran to dismantle its nuclear armaments industry.

Intelligence sources from with Iran inform us that Iran is still some 2 to 4 years away from reaching the point, where a bombing campaign would become necessary.
The Israelis are more settled on the idea that an earlier Israeli attack on Iran, would guarantee that the risks for Israel would be dramatically reduced.

 

[AsianDream]

The United States and The West does not have the wherewithal to take on a 1 million man Iranian army.

Nor does The United States and The West have sufficient foot soldiers, to successfully invade and occupy Iran.

Recent history has shown that the USA would have very little problem taking out the Iranian army and (mostly equiped with old US planes) Iranian airforce.

Where the US would fail miserably is if it tried to occupy the country afterwards - even if it doesn't make the same mistakes as it did in Iraq.

 

[kallipolis]

Recent history has shown that the USA would have very little problem taking out the Iranian army and (mostly equiped with old US planes) Iranian airforce.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen disagrees with your "analysis." On the contrary Admiral Mullen believes that the United States is over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen is recommending that a third front is not opened.

I will take Admiral Mullen's advice, over yours.:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/

Admiral Mullen also said:

He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

 

[naked gent]

Recent history has shown that the USA would have very little problem taking out the Iranian army and (mostly equiped with old US planes) Iranian airforce.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen disagrees with your "analysis." On the contrary Admiral Mullen believes that the United States is over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen is recommending that a third front is not opened.

I will take Admiral Mullen's advice, over yours.

I agree with AsianDream's analysis and don't believe Adm. Mullen said anything to contradict it.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to attack Iran but not because their military is anything to fear.

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream
Recent history has shown that the USA would have very little problem taking out the Iranian army and (mostly equiped with old US planes) Iranian airforce.

Originally Posted by kallipolis
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen disagrees with your "analysis." On the contrary Admiral Mullen believes that the United States is over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen is recommending that a third front is not opened.

I will take Admiral Mullen's advice, over yours.

I agree with AsianDream's analysis and don't believe Adm. Mullen said anything to contradict it.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to attack Iran but not because their military is anything to fear.

Adm. Mullen was giving honest answers to the questions he was asked.

This comes down to the fact that the USA has an incredibly powerful offensive Military capability (even ignoring their nuclear weapons).

But has very limited ability to successfully occupy another country.

In the case of Iran the USA could defeat them militarily in a few weeks - but would never manage to actually occupy the country.

The reasons for this reflect no discredit on the USA - most succesful occupations have been based on totally ruthless terror - the Nazis never had much problem in controlling a country.

To it's credit the USA has never been willing to use these sort of tactics.

The art of subduing a conqured enemy is very old. Mostly it's establishing a ratio of damage done to you that you extract retribution for. The historic ratio seems to have been about 1:100 - so in most Nazi occupations - for each of their soldiers killed they would kill around 100 of the local population.

It's not nice - but it is how a small number of soldiers can control a much larger hostile population.

The other method of occupying another country is to take over the existing institutions and use these as instruments of your control. This is something the Romans were good at - also something the USA did brilliantly in their occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII - there's no recorded attack on US occupation forces by either German or Japanese partisans.

 

[kallipolis]

I agree with AsianDream's analysis and don't believe Adm. Mullen said anything to contradict it.

On the contrary Admiral Mullen has plainly told The White House, not to consider attacking Iran with ground forces.Admiral Mullen has clearly stated that opening a third front would be a bad idea. Of course Admiral Mullen also stated that the United States retains a capability to mount a ground invasion of Iran. It would have been insane of him not to speak well of his own armed forces. Nevertheless Admiral Mullen is being diplomatic when stating that the United States forces could need to call on its reserves to mount a ground invasion of Iran. The morale of the United States Army in Iraq is already at a low, unequalled since the Vietnam War.

Patriotic opinions might well serve the civilian patriot, but hardly describe the feelings of the serving soldier in Iraq.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to attack Iran but not because their military is anything to fear.

Admiral Mullen might well be better informed. And for this reason is inviting The White House not to open a third front. If the Iranian Army is such a piece of cake for the American Army, why is the top American soldier recommending that there should be no invasion of Iran?

That Admiral Mullen has also said that reserve forces could be brought into the scenario should circumstances demand it, does not compromise the wisdom of his words, when he clearly stated that opening a third front would not be a wise move. The United States armed forces are transparently over stretched, on current commitments.

The other method of occupying another country is to take over the existing institutions and use these as instruments of your control. This is something the Romans were good at - also something the USA did brilliantly in their occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII

You meant to say the armed forces of the United Nations, including the United States. You neglected to mention The United Kingdom, Canada, The Soviet Union, France, Australia, New Zealand and others.

I note that such institutions in Iraq collapsed into chaos and factional infighting, after the occupation of Iraq by Western forces. For this reason it has been extremely difficult to rebuild Iraq. Political, factional, religious in fighting has made government of Iraq by a centralised administration virtually impossible

To it's credit the USA has never been willing to use these sort of tactics.

You are neglecting to mention the terror tactics employed by the United States in Vietnam. Need I disturb old wounds? The Internet is filled with accounts of inhumane actions perpetrated by The United States forces in Vietnam:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pul-a07.shtml

 

[kallipolis]

Despite having warm relations with Iran, last week the Greek Government permitted the Israeli Air Force the use of Greek air space, for a large exercise by some 100 Israeli aircraft.

Athens is within the strike range of Iran's most advanced missile.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

Over the past two days, the Iranian military has tested missiles, including one that it says could reach Israel.

State media said the tests included the first night launch of the Shahab-3 missile, said to have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles), along with shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.

 

[MystikWizard]

Iran developing nuclear weapons is different from when other nations, such as India and Pakistan. Iran, alone among the nuclear club, has threatened the existence of another country, Israel, and called for the destruction of another, the U.S. These types of threats made against a nation and not just the prevailing regime of that nation are rare. The long time enemies India and Pakistan never called for the other to be wiped from existence. The U.S. and the U.

And you think that they are actually stupid enough to attack Israel, given the shitstorm that would be unleashed upon them from not only Israel, but the rest of the World?

Plus, one move against the U.S. would result in the destruction of their country. I'm sorry, but I don't think they are that stupid.

I think more than anything, they want nukes to defend themselves. They have already witnessed the U.S., along with the rest of the world, commit an illegal invasion/occupation under International Law, with Iraq. Since then, and not satisfied with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is Hell-Bent on sabre-rattling with Iran. Seeing what happened in Iraq, and using Israel as a scape-goat, how would you not feel threatened if you were in Iran's position?

 

[AsianDream]

I agree with AsianDream's analysis and don't believe Adm. Mullen said anything to contradict it.

On the contrary Admiral Mullen has plainly told The White House, not to consider attacking Iran with ground forces.Admiral Mullen has clearly stated that opening a third front would be a bad idea. Of course Admiral Mullen also stated that the United States retains a capability to mount a ground invasion of Iran. It would have been insane of him not to speak well of his own armed forces. Nevertheless Admiral Mullen is being diplomatic when stating that the United States forces could need to call on its reserves to mount a ground invasion of Iran. The morale of the United States Army in Iraq is already at a low, unequalled since the Vietnam War.

Patriotic opinions might well serve the civilian patriot, but hardly describe the feelings of the serving soldier in Iraq.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to attack Iran but not because their military is anything to fear.

Admiral Mullen might well be better informed. And for this reason is inviting The White House not to open a third front. If the Iranian Army is such a piece of cake for the American Army, why is the top American soldier recommending that there should be no invasion of Iran?

Admiral Mullen is recommending no invasion because the USA would not be able to sustain an occupation. he also stated that the United States retains a capability to mount an invasion of Iran.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive - the USA does have the capability to "take out" Iran but probably not to occupy it.

In the view you are expounding - you are saying that Admiral Mullen is right when talking about the US problems in occupying Iran - but showed a carven disregard of truth (out of not wanting to speak against his own forces) when it comes to offensive capability?

The simpler explanation is that he is probably right in both cases - and answering the questions posed to him to the best of his knowledge and ability. What most of us would expect from a proffesional soldier - though that doesn't guarantee he is right on either count.

 

[AsianDream]

The other method of occupying another country is to take over the existing institutions and use these as instruments of your control. This is something the Romans were good at - also something the USA did brilliantly in their occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII.

You meant to say the armed forces of the United Nations, including the United States. You neglected to mention The United Kingdom, Canada, The Soviet Union, France, Australia, New Zealand and others.

I note that such institutions in Iraq collapsed into chaos and factional infighting, after the occupation of Iraq by Western forces. For this reason it has been extremely difficult to rebuild Iraq. Political, factional, religious in fighting has made government of Iraq by a centralised administration virtually impossible

I don't mean to be patronising - but at the end of WWII the United Nations was not yet formed - so I obviously didn't mean to say the armed forces of the United Nations.

I'm not saying a complete ignorance of History is always a bad thing - but it does make it hard to draw any conclusions from it.

The main reason for the collapse in Iraq is because the USA decided not to do a deal with the Iraq army and the political establishment.

In both Germany and Japan - they left most of the "Bad guys" in control - in Iraq they decided on a clean break.

In practice this meant making around a third of a million still heavily armed Iraq troops unemployed. It's not too surprising some of them have found other employment in mounting an effective insurgency.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't mean to be patronising - but at the end of WWII the United Nations was not yet formed - so I obviously didn't mean to say the armed forces of the United Nations.

http://www.norway-un.org/UNBodies/TheEarlyBeginning/The+Early+Beginning.htm

The United Nations was formed in 1942 as a coalition of nations allied to defeat the Axis powers. The formalisation of the United Nations we know today, took place in 1945.
The Allied nations fought the enemy with the United Nations star, as their symbol of unified action against the Axis powers.

Admiral Mullen is recommending no invasion because the USA would not be able to sustain an occupation. he also stated that the United States retains a capability to mount an invasion of Iran.

Admiral Mullen is recommending that a third front not be established against Iran, as a result of over stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen rightly considers the unexpected. Iraq is evidence of the unexpected, when the Western forces failed to consider the hostility of so many Iraqis to their "liberation" from Saddam.

In both Germany and Japan - they left most of the "Bad guys" in control

This is the reverse of the truth. The "bad boys" either fled to South America, or were tried at Nuremberg.

General Patton appointed a former SS officer (without a "criminal" record) to act as the senior civilian bureaucrat in Bavaria. The appointment was short lived. The former SS officer was dismissed, and General Patton transferred to command a typing pool. General Patton's traffic accident and death, remains a mystery

 

[JayHawk]

Hostility of the Iraqis???? Do you have any idea where the majority of the shit storm came from in Iraq?
4000 foreign insurgents killed from the mouth of Al Qaida itself. There is the Sunni insurgency and baathist but I would argue that the majority of the push and support has not been homegrown.

As far as taking out the Iranian Military goes what you fail to recognize is that the US military trains in a way that makes every soldier a force multiplier. They have done so since WWII when kill percentages were so low they were described as anemic. Only 15 Percent of the WWII GI's actually shot to kill on the battlefield. That has been trained out of the US military. They shot to kill at rates of 55 percent in Korea and by Vietnam the ratio was 95 percent of the men on the ground were shooting to kill.

These methods of training coupled with advanced weapons systems makes the kill ratio huge. So the light fast force can devestate any enemy. We have trained this way for a long time. All of our potential enemies had conscript armies that are huge. We on the other hand have highly trained forces that multiply based on our tactics and strategy.

In Iraq we have somewhere between 1:5 or 1:11 kill ratio whereas in Afghanistan we have somewhere around 1:50. Our low rate in Iraq is due to the Counter insurgency (COIN) ops. Urban combat is particularly difficult for a force that places such a high value on not killing non-combatants. The decision piece also means we lose more men and women.

I will not argue that we could not occupy Iran. Only a fool would even think such a thing was possible with our current force levels and technology. We could however decimate any country on this planet in very short order. Our principles will not allow us to safely occupy any country. We value life as policy so it makes it easy to take ours.

Of course given the right provocation you would find the US Military would go from 1.5 Million active and 1.5 million reserves to tens of millions.

All of this is academic. Israel will do the attacking. BTW while bunker busters only go 200 feet is true simply think about smart bombs landing in the same spot over and over and over.......anyways you get the idea.

Anyways enough war for Sunday

 

[kallipolis]

Should we then presume that Iraqi hostility towards the Western occupying forces, is a figment of our imagination?

 

[AsianDream]

The United Nations was formed in 1942 as a coalition of nations allied to defeat the Axis powers. The formalisation of the United Nations we know today, took place in 1945.

The idea was first proposed in 1942 - but the UN wasn't formed till after the war in 1945 - so did not "fight the war"

In both Germany and Japan - they left most of the "Bad guys" in control

This is the reverse of the truth. The "bad boys" either fled to South America, or were tried at Nuremberg.

Unfortunately it is the truth - Unless you think that the 26 people prosecuted in Japan and the 24 people in Nuremberg were the only people who were complicit in the crimes committed by Japan and Germany (see: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials).

As well as disbanding the army - the other main mistake the USA made in Iraq was removing all members of the Ba'ath party from any public jobs.

If every member of the Nazi party had been treated in the same way in Germany after WWII the country would have fallen apart in the same way as Iraq has.

 

[kallipolis]

The idea was first proposed in 1942 - but the UN wasn't formed till after the war in 1945 - so did not "fight the war"

Should you care to read the link that I have provided, you will note that the United Nations was created in 1942, in order to fight the Axis Powers. I have already stated that the United Nations we know today, was formalised in 1945:

I quote:

The name "United Nations" was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

You may have overlooked the following post in another forum by another poster, in response to your very similar statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianDream View Post
In The Nuremberg trials and the Japanese equivalent only a few hundred people were found guilty - that's not the reality - millions of people in WWII were guilty of crimes against others - most of them escaped punishment.

reply:

Actually, in Germany thru the Nuremberg trials and associated military tribunals, roughly half of 2 million indicted Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Waffen SS soldiers, and Nazi officials and functionaries, were convicted of war crimes and of crimes against humanity. The guilty were imprisoned or executed. The few hundred processed thru the more famous Nuremberg trials were by and large their commanders. This doesn't account for the many other guilty parties captured by the Red Army.

Those released, as well as German civilians at large, were left occupied and surrounded by ruins well into the 1950s. Considering the fire-bombings, famine, devestation, and their forced division between East and West, one could think of the Germans' post-war situation as punishment too.

There were similar tribunals in Japan, although there I believe the Allies copped out of prosecuting for crimes and atrocities committed before 1940 (ie the rape of Manchuria).


If every member of the Nazi party had been treated in the same way in Germany after WWII the country would have fallen apart in the same way as Iraq has.

Most members of the Nazi Party were not war criminals, and therefore entitled to participate in the de-Nazification programme, that the British very efficiently imposed on all Germans, who had been part of Nazi Germany's civilian administration. This policy enabled post war Germany to rapidly develop into the model democracy that it is today.

The prosecution of Japanese war criminals by The Allied Powers, is discussed here:

http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/PT-archive.htm

 

[AsianDream]

z
Actually, in Germany thru the Nuremberg trials and associated military tribunals, roughly half of 2 million indicted Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Waffen SS soldiers, and Nazi officials and functionaries, were convicted of war crimes and of crimes against humanity. The guilty were imprisoned or executed.

No they weren't -

If as you claim 1 million Germans were convicted - there seems to be no evidence that 2% of the German population were jailed after the war (except for those captured by Russia).

Do you also claim that any Japanese (other than the 24 people tried for war crimes) were ever punished?

 

[yuengling]

War with iran cannot happen in any real sense. There could possibly be an air strike but that would be it. our military is already overextended and on top of that any action on our part would send us into the 1930's.

 

[kallipolis]

No they weren't -

If as you claim 1 million Germans were convicted - there seems to be no evidence that 2% of the German population were jailed after the war (except for those captured by Russia).

This link will give you a more complete picture, on how the Allied occupation powers dealt with Nazi war criminals, apart from the Nuremberg trials of the ruling Nazi elite:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394973

The pursuit of Nazi war criminals, continues to this day:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Wiesenthalreport06.html

You will note that the two links I have chosen to quote, are a well known and respected Jewish institution, in order to offer you an opportunity to appreciate an objective view of post war Allied efforts to clean up the Nazi menace.

Do you also claim that any Japanese (other than the 24 people tried for war crimes) were ever punished?

It would appear that you are preferring to avoid reading the information contained in the links, that I have provided.I am not claiming anything, merely acquainting you with the appropriate records that witness to the prosecution of thousands of Japanese war criminals by the victorious Allied powers, including China.

I repeat the links, in case you wish to learn something:

http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/PT-archive.htm

This will be my last post on this thread.

 

[AsianDream]

This will be my last post on this thread.

Good - I'm very glad to hear this