US ready to strike Iran by spring

Invasion of Canada (1775) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Invasion of Canada, 1775. Part of the American Revolutionary War. Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec. (John Trumbull, 1786) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_(1775)
War of 1812 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Major General Sir Isaac Brock skillfully repulsed an American invasion of Upper Canada, but his. Major General Sir Isaac Brock skillfully repulsed an ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An empty link to the invasion of Canada? Here's one that works. Yes, we fought the British in Canada (that's also where our British antagonists were) in securing our independence. But the War of 1812??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please try again.

The individuals most commonly referred to as "Founding Fathers" are Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington. Link me some warmongering on their parts, involving foreign wars of aggression comparable to the contemporary invasion of Iraq, or the attacks Iran is being threatened with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since this thread has predictably been hijacked and is now spiraling into the ditch, I will chime in with something else that has nothing to do with the plans to attack Iran.

Despite his demi-god status among many in the U.S., no POTUS has more blood on his hands than Abraham Lincoln. He led the U.S. into the most disastrous conflict in her history. Incidentally, he was also regarded as a horrible public speaker.

Wonder what they will be saying about King George in 100 years?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are we really off topic?.

The thread title is "US Ready to Strike Iran by Spring".

Well, I'm not ready at all. I don't think that the collective spirit of America is ready. I don't think that our most vaunted American principles are compatible with a new military campaign against Iran at this point. There is a more palpable resistance to the beat of the war-drums this time, from Congress, from the military, from the intelligence community, from the press, and from the public, than during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. And America overwhelmingly regrets that invasion today. We're terribly bogged down in Iraq, and open hostilities with Iran will obviously not improve that situation.

We're not ready. Part of the reason we're not ready is because it's not part of our national heritage and self-image to be so belligerent and stupid as to follow the Bush cabal into hell.

"Wonder what they will be saying about King George in 100 years?"

That all depends on folks like you and me in the here and now.

 

I have heard it said that we are already at war with Iran - it is just undeclared. Also, I have heard that the recent war with Israel was actually...Israel vs. Iran (some of the fighters were supplied by Iran and virtually all of the weapons). Just what I heard. Maybe someone else has heard this as well.

 

Whether or not the people are ready, attacking Iran may be absolutely necessary in order to protect our aims in Iraq. I am staunchly against broadening the war, but if intelligence provides clear evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents, how could the military commanders not engage the enemy on that front? Wouldn't it be reckless for the U.S. to do nothing to stem the tide of weapons that are being used to kill civilians and troops?

Iran may force our hand here.

 

15/19: "attacking Iran may be absolutely necessary in order to protect our aims in Iraq."

We have lost track of our national aims in Iraq. Can you describe them? How can we possibly protect them by aggravating Iran?

"if intelligence provides clear evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents, how could the military commanders not engage the enemy on that front?"

Intelligence has shown that the United States is by far the leading supplier of weapons to the insurgents: We gave them away from Saddam's depots, and we're giving them away right now to hopelessly-infiltrated Iraqi forces. Weapons merchants from innumerable countries are involved in this and every insurgency. Because the corpse of Iraq is the beginning of a wider Shi'a uprising in the Persian Gulf Region, Iran's best interests have been and are served by sitting back and letting US clumsiness do all the work.

"Wouldn't it be reckless for the U.S. to do nothing to stem the tide of weapons that are being used to kill civilians and troops?"

Iran is not the wellspring of the tide of weapons now bloating the corpse of Iraq. America let that genie out of the bottle. While blaming Iran may distract you, it will never bottle things back up.

It's more reckless to ignore the reality that Iran is much better contained now than under conditions of open hostilities. Our garrisons in Iraq, and our supply routes through the Gulf are extremely vulnerable to what will happen should Iran be provoked. We're bogged down, far from home and friends in Iraq. If we escalate that sad situation, we're sure to get our asses kicked.

 

Saudi Arabia is likely supplying the Sunnis with weapons, Iran is likely supplying the Shias. This was bound to happen. Since neither we nor the Iraqis can maintain stability, the surrounding nations are beginning to intervene, and they are taking sides. Rather than war, we should be persuing an active diplomatic relationship with them, and encourage multilateral solutions to the Iraq crisis. This is what the Iraq study group recommended. No military solutions exist.

 

Iran is not the wellspring of the tide of weapons now bloating the corpse of Iraq. America let that genie out of the bottle. While blaming Iran may distract you, it will never bottle things back up.

I may have missed it, but I don't think my original question was answered. If intelligence provides clear evidence that weapons are coming over the border from Iran, into the hands of militants in Iraq, wouldn't it be the absolute responsibility of the commanders to stop those weapons at their source? Regardless of feelings of who did what to whom, or who is really to blame for the whole mess anyway, the U.S. has a responsibility to the troops on the ground and the civilians, to protect them as well as they can.

This is where I see the biggest disconnect between those that say the U.S. should just pull out altogether, and those who say the U.S. is obligated to stay the course and work toward stabilizing the situation. You can't play both sides of that coin. If you truly want peace in the region, you couldn't possibly advocate turning a blind eye towards obvious sources of armaments and funding to the insurgency. Could you?

 

15/19: "I may have missed it, but I don't think my original question was answered. If intelligence provides clear evidence that weapons are coming over the border from Iran, into the hands of militants in Iraq, wouldn't it be the absolute responsibility of the commanders to stop those weapons at their source?"

Weapons are coming over every border into Iraq. No special intelligence is required for this realization. Iran is not the primary source, and especially not the logistical source for the Sunni militias causing the majority of American casualties.

"the U.S. has a responsibility to the troops on the ground and the civilians, to protect them as well as they can."

Escalating the war will certainly not protect troops or civilians in Iraq. Nor will escalation reduce weapons smuggling.

There are multiple sources of armaments and funding to insurgents all over this planet wherever there is chaos. If our response to chaos is to attack all weapons sourcing then we will find ourselves on a rapidly self-defeating trajectory.

If as you say Iranian infiltration and logistics are the source of all trouble in Iraq, then a reasonable response would be to seal that border. It is not reasonable to open up wider hostilities, resulting in greater chaos, bringing an acceleration of weapons trafficking.

Don't forget that Sunni militias, who are engaging American troops much more than are the Shi'a, are enjoying Saudi support. Does your doctrine therefore require that we attack Saudi Arabia on the same principle?

"If you truly want peace in the region, you couldn't possibly advocate turning a blind eye towards obvious sources of armaments and funding to the insurgency. Could you?"

 

Hi Madanthony,

thank you for starting this thread

What has attacking Iran got to do with the war on terror?

As far as i see it Bin lid will be laughing if we do. Saddam was not bin Lids mate and the guys in Tehran sure as hell arent either.

when will BUSH ever learn??? All he will do by attacking Iran is enhance the power of the BIn lid.

the only 2 winners i see here is the Hous eof Saud and israel to an extent, however lets ignore israel for a minute.

If i was the US i would try either one of these 2 things to help them in this war on terror.
1) install Mubarak/Saddam style dictators all over the middle east including their beloved Saudi Arabia,
2) econmically strangle the KSA. By not buying any oil and enclosing it in a ring of steel, cutting of diplomatic ties etc etc... The US does not need to worry about oil as they can get oil from many countries, as they all are willing to sell.

For Saudi arabia they should do point 2 first and when the House of Saud is weakened, try a Arab Military dictator in along the lines of Assad or Mubbarak

Dont try the democracy thing or else it will be a shambles like Iraq

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take it ez
Zak





2)

 

I have clear intelligence that the US provided weapons to Iraq.

 

I cant wait for the US to liberate Iran. I'm sure the Iranian people will line the streets and shower the US troops with rose petals.

 

Once they tasted McDonalds they will lose their fundamentalist ways.

 

More like the contents of their stomachs.

 

Since EFPs are being touted by the saber-rattlers as some sort of high-tech, limited-source device, complete with serial numbers and perhaps even "Made in Iran" placards, and since we are being told that insurgents must be procuring these assemblies from Iran, I think we should all take a good look at one of these wicked little gadgets:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We are being led to ignore the notion that Iraqis can procure and assemble materials like oil pipe, copper bowls, explosives, fuses, and such. We are being led to ignore the reality that such materials are commonplace in Iraq. We are being led to ignore the reality that the knowledge of how to assemble, arm, and conceal them is commonplace in Iraq. We are being led to ignore the reality that the motivation to do so is commonplace in Iraq. We are being led to believe instead that Iran can be the only source of all such devices so threatening to our occupation forces.

We are being taken for fools.

 

"We" are?? Or you are? Who is this "we" of which you speak? Or are you trying, unsuccessfully, to convince all of the rest of us to your way of thinking? ...in much the same way as those who you're attempting to denigrate for doing the same thing?

How many mice do you have in your pocket, Hype? And are they all fools?

Baron Max

 

Easy, Baron. I'm only asking you to think for yourself. Is that really such an offensive concept for you?

"Who is this "we" of which you speak?"

You, me, the American public, the world; everyone now being told that Iran is the source of EFPs harming American soldiers in Iraq.

"are you trying, unsuccessfully, to convince all of the rest of us to your way of thinking?"

Use your own way of thinking to consider whether Iraqi fighters really need Iran's participation in order to implement this technology.

 

No you weren't ...you were telling us that we were fools if we believed anything other than what you want us to believe. I.e., you're no different to those you denigrated in your post.

They present their case, you present yours ....that's the way it works. But you, on the other hand, choose to resort to name-calling and personal judgements about those who believe differently to you.

Need? Or want? Or simply due to availability? Or easy access? Or cheaper? Or faster?

Criminals everywhere could learn to make their own handguns, but how many do you know of who do so?

Your case is weak, Hype, you just don't want to think about that, though, do you? Nope. Your whole cases is based on your obsession that the USA should surrender to the criminals in Iraq ......and anything that you think strengthens that thought, you're all for it.

Baron Max

 

"Need? Or want? Or simply due to availability? Or easy access? Or cheaper? Or faster? Criminals everywhere could learn to make their own handguns, but how many do you know of who do so?"

These type EFPs are much easier to make than a handgun, once you know the dimensions. Because one inexpensive, improvised device of this kind can defeat a multi-million-dollar tank, the payoff for the opposition to our occupation is considerable. It's an aspect of emerging assymetrical warfare that enables a relatively rag-tag insurgency to significantly attrit a technologically-superior occupying force. The materials and know-how for effective EFPs are easy to come by in Iraq. Iraqi militias don't need any help from Iran in order to make and use these weapons.

I understand that it is disturbing to know that our impressive armor, and (more importantly) our flesh-and-blood troops are so vulnerable to relatively cheap and low-tech improvisation in this situation. But that's the way it is. Directing your frustration over this reality toward me is just irrational.

Consider directing your frustration instead toward a leadership intentionally distracting you from the DIY, local-homebrew nature of this deadly EFP vulnerability that our troops are facing. Consider directing your frustration at the leaders who allowed hundreds of tons of high explosives to be looted and lost track of during the invasion. Our troops in Iraq are sure to be confronted by many more of these little nasties no matter what the Iranians do or don't do.