Will Bush bomb Iran?

[iceaura]

It was a somewhat pedantic correction directed at your assertion that "[the VC] continued to be a factor for several more years". After Tet they were basically a non-factor.

The US was still fighting them months - even years - later. The Song My campaign was against a "VC stronghold" two months after Tet, and other campaigns agaisnt "VC strongholds" were launched in the ensuing months and years.

They weren't capable of winning in open battles, true - but they had never been capable of winning in open battles. They were a political factor - they weren't supposed to exist, and once undeniably in existence they never went away.

Something similar happened in Iraq in the summer of 2004 when we were about to roll into Falluja and fighting broke out in Ramadi at the same time. Media were covering both events, and while the insurgent gangs who perpetrated the violence in both cities were summarily obliterated, the bang they went out with echoed across American television sets, invalidating claims that were being made at the time by political leaders.

Another similarity is that they weren't eliminated, summarily or otherwise, and their persistance afterwards was visible from then on - in direct refutation of some of the justifications of the war,and the claims of its progress since as well as prior.

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

[countezero]

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

Comparing My Lai and Abu Ghraib is ridiculous.

[Norsefire]

Well, exactly. Thus my "mailed fist versus velvet glove" post earlier in this thread. All I am saying is that the US military has performed admirably in all accounts given the way it has been managed by the political establishment to which it answers.


Thank you for providing us with this textbook example of a strawman argument.


Of course. Which is one of the many other reasons why you will never see a landed invasion of Iran in the same manner as Iraq, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that it is possible in the current situation.

At the very most, direct military action would consist of US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which is a realistic objective that could be accomplished by air and naval power alone. I still consider such actions unlikely, however, given Bush's lame duck political status in Washington as an unpopular president in the latter half of his last term in office.

Also, it is interesting to see you including Iranians (who are Persian) as part of the Arab world. ("We will win in the end") Why is this?

Regardless, I see a confrontation between Iran and Israel as far more likely than against the US, and in that case, it is a war even Israel cannot win.

"We", the Middle East. "We", the Arabs. "We", the Persians. "We", the Israelites.

I want all of us (including Israel) to unite into a Semitic sort of alliance, rather than kill each other.

[countezero]

Regardless, I see a confrontation between Iran and Israel as far more likely than against the US, and in that case, it is a war even Israel cannot win.

Israel would wallop the Iranians, presuming the Israelis fight the way they can and don't fight the way they did in the Lebanese conflict a few summers back. Most of Iran's military is outdated, Soviet-era crap.

[Echo3Romeo]

The US was still fighting them months - even years - later. The Song My campaign was against a "VC stronghold" two months after Tet, and other campaigns agaisnt "VC strongholds" were launched in the ensuing months and years.

By this point the VC were in full retreat. The operation in question was in Quang Ngai province, which was one of the centers where the VC were suspected of trying to regroup. After Tet, the US/RVN had the initiative over the VC and had them battened down and on the run. They were no longer a cohesive force and what followed was mopping them up.

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

There wasn't really any other solution to the violence Falluja was exporting in 2004 other than clearing the city like we (finally) did. Back then it was a bastion of former regime loyalists, foreign jihadists, and old Iraqi Army officers hostile to the coalition. Noncombatants were displacing from the city daily as the violence grew. Vacillation at the political level by the coalition postponed the inevitable for half a year, but when we finally went in and cleaned up the streets it stayed that way. Today it is relatively peaceful.

Also, the abuses at Abu Ghraib weren't really connected to Falluja in the same way that My Lai was related to Tet. One was a village being swept for VC suspected of regrouping there after Tet, which is an indirect result. The other was a prison where some bad stuff happened that also happened to be in the same country. The timing was incidental.

[Norsefire]

Israel would wallop the Iranians, presuming the Israelis fight the way they can and don't fight the way they did in the Lebanese conflict a few summers back. Most of Iran's military is outdated, Soviet-era crap.

Sure about that? Iran develops its own equipment, and not to mention it would also recieve aid from other sources

And, they are not only larger, but they have a superior land force and a formidable air force.

[otheadp]

lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090107.html

quote:

So we should continue with the present path — and not bomb or have surrogates bomb Iran. That option is still down the road. For as long as it is possible, the best-case scenario is not a smoking Iran, but a humiliated theocracy that slowly implodes before the world, displaying in their disgrace what the mullahs did to themselves — and perhaps a small reminder of those helpful shoves from us.

[S.A.M.]

Guess you haven't heard about Daddy; I wouldn't even be surprised if the Americans went hand in glove, it would give them the green light to look out for number One.

[oreodont]

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

True. It's astounding that an occupation is about trust and image and then the American soldiers turn around and torture and murder Iraqi civilians. How can a military be so poorly trained and such atrocities happen in the 21st century? The damage to the occupier's mission is as if the military are given weapons and told to shoot themselves. Fortunately the photos of American torture at Abu Graib will be forever in the history books for future generations around the world to witness.

[Norsefire]

lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090107.html

quote:

The Iranian Air Force. It has an arsenal of fine Russian aircraft, AND to boot it also develops the Shafaq fighter jet, a very fine jet.

Israel's air force is the US Air Force. Israelis wouldn't have an Air Force if it weren't for the US in the first place.

Really? Isn't Iraq very far from the US?

[countezero]

Sure about that? Iran develops its own equipment

We've had this fight before. You think Iran has good equipment, I think it's junk. Most of it is outdated Soviet crap. Whatever Iran is developing is probably crap, too. A country that can't get its own resources out of the ground can't make jet fighters and tanks capable of overpowering US arms. Tell you what? I'll even go one step further. There isn't any Arab nation that could beat Israel in a war. Not one. See the above reason about resources and arms...

and not to mention it would also recieve aid from other sources.

Really? From who? Syria? Syria doesn't have anything of value, either. The rest of the Arab world is pretty wary of Iran, and I doubt they would help them...

And, they are not only larger, but they have a superior land force and a formidable air force.

Air force is a joke. The army is larger, numbers-wise, but every land war in the region in the past 50 years has shown numbers are useless. The only thing Arab nations can do is fight insurgent campaigns in which they "bleed" their opponents. They can't fight for and hold territory and have never been able to do so.

[Echo3Romeo]

Iran's military is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s. They are still plagued with aging equipment, poor logistic support, and systemic mismanagement. About the only thing they have going in their favor is the IRGC; a decent harassing force at best. The IRGC, however, doesn't answer to the political establishment in Iran the same way other militaries do; they're there mostly to enforce Islamic law and ensure that the Islamic regime isn't toppled (again). The regular military has some rather impressive numbers, but that is about all. Engaged in a symmetrical conflict with a modern western military following the NATO model, the Iranians would be playing to their enemy's greatest strength.

Recall the last time the Iranians took an aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf waters: Operation Praying Mantis, in which all involved Iranian forces afloat were annihilated by the US Navy while two (count them: TWO) USN F-14s held off the entireity of the Iranian Air Force.

It wasn't the first time a military built on the Soviet model was obliterated by one that followed the NATO model, nor was it the last. Iran has learned its lesson, I would think, and their leadership is not stupid enough to confront the US, Israel, or any other western power directly unless absolutely necessary. Their conventional military is a joke. What isn't a joke, and what any western power challenging Iranian influence in the ME should be keenly aware of, is their ability to exert pressure through non-state actors (read: guerillas) and make a protracted presence in the region untenable for the outsider.

[hypewaders]

E3R: "Iran's military is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s. They are still plagued with aging equipment, poor logistic support, and systemic mismanagement"

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval, Sunburn, and Onyx.

"Their conventional military is a joke."

I'm not laughing.

[iceaura]

Comparing My Lai and Abu Ghraib is ridiculous.

1) That's one reason I threw Fallujah in, and 2) comparing the role of My Lai to the role of Abu Ghraib in the political victory of the bad guys is not at all ridiculous.

Vacillation at the political level by the coalition postponed the inevitable for half a year, but when we finally went in and cleaned up the streets it stayed that way. Today it is relatively peaceful.

You "went in" more than once, made refugees of the whole city, and wrecked the place. You used WP against people, shelled and rocketed inhabited parts of town, and killed so many civilians they were buried in mass graves - and that was just the first time, which wasn't enough. You did not "clean up" anything - it's rubble, and hostile, to this day.

Today it is "relatively peaceful", in its way. Some of the refugees have returned. But it is not forgotten, by Iraqis. At least one major, and several minor, terrorist incidents (the hotel suicide bombing in Jordan) trace directly to Fallujah, and it is mentioned often by Sunnis in the area. Fallujah was originally, in the first phase of the invasion, one of the few non-Kurdish Iraqi cities that actually welcomed US forces. It turned against them based on, apparently, experience - and in particular, it became violent first and most obviously toward mercenaries. The final incident that touched off the US sacking of the town was against four mercenaries (Blackwater, IIRC). The US military backing mercenaries, taking revenge for violence directed against mercenaries, was an interesting new angle in this war compared with past US wars.

By this point the VC were in full retreat. The operation in question was in Quang Ngai province, which was one of the centers where the VC were suspected of trying to regroup. After Tet, the US/RVN had the initiative over the VC and had them battened down and on the run. They were no longer a cohesive force and what followed was mopping them up.

Retreat to where? The US was in the process of "mopping up" all of South Vietnam? That would help explain the endemic levels of crime and atrocity among the US forces, of which My Lai was just a big one that got caught.

The problem was that Tet revealed something that undercut the whole war - very few in Vietnam were on the US side, and most of them for suspect reasons. ARVN had the best training and equipment available - they did not fight hard. But when they deserted to the other side, with much poorer logistical support, they fought hard.

We are seeing a culturally much different (there is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh) but in general form related pattern in Iraq: the enemy fights harder than the ally - even when they are the same people. It's not a matter of innate courage or ability.

Nor is it with the Iranians. The Israeli army would have a very difficult time in Iran - the Iranians do fight hard, in defense ("heroic" is not too strong a word, for some of their battles against Iraq's superior equipment and support) and they have some interesting capabilities - such as night flying and in-air refueling.

If you recall, a US commander called out of retirement to manage the Iranian side in some war games a couple of years ago took on [edited for bad memory] a full invasion foce in the Persian Gulf, sunk 16 ships including the aircraft carrier, killed thousands of sailors and soldiers, and threw the invasion back into the Gulf. The Iranians have been found to have better equipment, since. Let's hope they have no commanders as skilled.

[Norsefire]

We've had this fight before. You think Iran has good equipment, I think it's junk. Most of it is outdated Soviet crap. Whatever Iran is developing is probably crap, too. A country that can't get its own resources out of the ground can't make jet fighters and tanks capable of overpowering US arms. Tell you what? I'll even go one step further. There isn't any Arab nation that could beat Israel in a war. Not one. See the above reason about resources and arms...




Really? From who? Syria? Syria doesn't have anything of value, either. The rest of the Arab world is pretty wary of Iran, and I doubt they would help them...



Air force is a joke. The army is larger, numbers-wise, but every land war in the region in the past 50 years has shown numbers are useless. The only thing Arab nations can do is fight insurgent campaigns in which they "bleed" their opponents. They can't fight for and hold territory and have never been able to do so.

Well I'm afraid what you think doesn't change fact. And that is that Iran has formidable equipment.

A country that is richer than Israel and can has the most powerful military of the Middle East can most defintely overpower Israeli military forces.

Yes, there is. Syria.


But, Syria isn't fighting Israel in the wars. It's fighting America.
Face it, without America Israel would be throwing stones.


Their Army is not only larger, but better than Israel's. Not only are they MUCH larger, they are also very organized and have close air-to-ground support, coupled with the Iranians' superb tracking systems and I see an easy victory.

[stretched]

Quote: otheadp

"lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:"

What are the grounds for bombing Iraq in the first place? let alone YET????

WTF?

[otheadp]

Well I'm afraid what you think doesn't change fact. And that is that Iran has formidable equipment.

A country that is richer than Israel and can has the most powerful military of the Middle East can most defintely overpower Israeli military forces.

Yes, there is. Syria.


But, Syria isn't fighting Israel in the wars. It's fighting America.
Face it, without America Israel would be throwing stones.


Their Army is not only larger, but better than Israel's. Not only are they MUCH larger, they are also very organized and have close air-to-ground support, coupled with the Iranians' superb tracking systems and I see an easy victory.

i think you've been fed a steady diet of military parades and victory speeches a-la 1973 and 2006.

you better pray you don't get another one of them victories

[Norsefire]

As the same with you, I suppose.

If it weren't for the US aid, Israel would've gotten (if not it did) it's ass kicked in '73. The UN saved her ass.


You know who I want to win? Unity. Peace. An Alliance. Unfortunately, BOTH sides are not willing to do that.

I view (seriously) the Israelis as Brothers. They are Brothers of the Book, and they are Semites like us. I want to see an Arab-Jew-Persian alliance. Fantasy? Yes, but wouldn't you want to see that?

[otheadp]

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval, Sunburn, and Onyx.

Russian planes with Arab / Iranian fighter pilots vs. American made and Israeli modified planes with Israeli fighter pilots ... who do you think has the better chance? even if Russia would sell Syria or Iran its most advanced planes, which they won't, of course.

also, remember the Russian advanced anti aircraft systems they sold to Syria and Iran recently? guess who flew into Syria unharmed and almost undetected, other than Santa? furthermore, there were reports from Lebanon that at the time of the Israeli overflights in Syria a whole bunch of electronic equipment stopped working -- which probably means some massive sophisticated jamming going on.

Iran and Syria have assymetrical warfare going for them. thats the only thing they've got. but Israel won't go in to occupy Syria. they know better than that. instead, they'll just bomb the shit out of Syria, destroy the big missile launchers, destroy the air force, and go back to the base. and if Syria immitates Hizballah tactics by launching 1000s of rockets into Tel Aviv, then this time you'll see a more cruel Israeli army - they'll carpet bomb west Syria into oblivion so no launchers remain behind any bushes (and no bushes remain either).

[Dunn11x]

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=recruiting.nl

The above link shows what happens when there is a crack, hole, or any form of structural inpairment on a Mortar Launcher and it is STILL used. It is also and example of what happens to people who aren't trained properly. And the link below shows why the insurgents don't want to go head to head. Also really bad planning.... I mean, attacking two elavated bunkers with that? http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...Content=122252