In terms of the strategic scenario proposed, Iranian troops are largely irrelevant. This would be an air/sea encounter, and it would be about as close as the Saints/Colts game a few weeks ago. The U.S. has the present capability to control the airspace over Iran and the Straight of Hormuz even acting alone. The Iranian “navy”, such as it is, would find itself on the painful side of a game of “whack-a-mole” for as long as they existed. Then the question becomes how hard of a spanking the rest of the country is going to endure. With control of the skies, any assets they have are vulnerable…including the nuclear facilities they are in the process of digging in to a mountain. We can put them in a world of hurt without sending in ground troops.
funny how the US locks up OWS protesters for protesting against corruption, but play the “human right” card when iran is doing the same.
I told you this earlier in a different thread, but you are not allowed to insult people in this forum. I’m giving you an official warning this time.
and then they’ll send more troops into afghanistan to kill US troops. Oh wait I forgot, you don’t believe that afghanistan is worst off with the US there than when it wasn’t there.
I forgot, white people will lie and lie to make it look like they control the world. my bad
Martin, agreed, I assume the “problems” he was referring to were the more recent ones, certainly in Iraq those after both the overwheming initial engagements.
it’s not an insult. it’s a fact. He’s either naive or stupid. And yes they both have real meaning.
Looking at this board I wouldn’t be surprised if they voted for mitt rommey or obama. They like nonsense war-hawks.
Guess I’m the only ron paul supporter
Can you point to any significant military defeat in either Iraq or Afghanistan?
As I said, shaping a country is very different from a military campaign. The jury is still very much out on Iraq, but if we lost in Iraq we certainly didn’t lose the war, we lost the rebuilding.
If the rebuilding is lost, it won’t be because insurgents killed American troops. In fact, insurgents killing American troops actually isn’t a big deal, the big deal is insurgents killing civilians and other insurgents. Because that state of affairs is what leads to civil war and instability and societal collapse. If the insurgents were just concerned with killing American troops, we would have little problem with rebuilding Iraq. We’d get schools, roads, infrastructure built and fly out. The moment we left all the shooting would stop. However that wasn’t the situation, our position in Iraq was more akin to a referee in a fight. We had to keep the fight from getting out of hand, and we might take some hits during that job but none too serious. The big concern was, eventually we had to leave because we couldn’t be the referee forever. For us to have been successful the fighters would need to be willing to live with one another even after we left.
We won’t know how that’s going to work out for some time, as I said, the Iraqi government is being tested now, and we’ll know a lot more in 12 months than we know now about how Iraq is going to hold up.
But that’s all irrelevant when talking about Iran. You made the comment that we couldn’t handle a rag tag insurgency. Well, no military force in history can completely eradicate an insurgency, that just isn’t possible. However, militarily we were not seriously impacted by any rag tag insurgent groups in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Your comment about how we defeated the conventional Iraqi military and they then became terrorists shows you don’t really understand what we’re talking about. In this hypothetical scenario we’d probably sink Iran’s navy, which would eliminate her ability to block off the Straits of Hormuz again for some time. What is going to happen with those sunken ships? Are they going to float back to the surface and become terrorist ships? I don’t think that is going to happen.
We potentially will also launch several major strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the Iranian air force. What’s going to happen, are those destroyed planes going to rebuild themselves and become terrorist planes?
We won’t be invading Iran and fighting directly against Iranian ground forces. Do you think that they are just going to magically leave their posts as members of Iran’s military and become terrorists? I think the Iranian government will have a serious problem with them doing that.
Do you think they are going to blow up stuff in Iran, like insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Iraq did? Lay down IEDs in Tehran? Um, more power to them? Since we won’t have troops there exactly how does that make sense? Who are they going to be running an insurgency against, themselves?
Sorry, playing the “but he really is [insert insult here]” card does not stop it from being an insult.
This is a further Warning that you are on thin ice.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
So wait let me get this straight, we invaded a country. We conquered it for absolutely no reason. Now we have a bunch of terrorists running around killing innocent civilians on a daily basis. Our puppet government isn’t doing its job. Buildings aren’t even rebuilt. we have over 1,000,000 dead civilians. And we won the war?
Yes that’s wonderful. Please don’t ever run for congress. Otherwise we’ll ruin every country and you’ll call it “victory”
Ah my bad. i guess first amendments don’t apply here. “fighting ignorance” my ass. More like saying things until other people agree with me. you people are a joke. Just like niggers
And goodbye.
Militarily we have had only minor issues in Iraq or Afghanistan.
In this scenario no one would invade Iran, so all your points about the dystopian situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are moot. We would not be occupying Iran, simply destroying portions of her military. There would be no U.S. troop presence for terrorists to strike against, no occupation to operate an insurgency against.
Wow. I’ve never seen somebody go so insane on a thread so quickly.
The saddest part is that he doesn’t realize how ridiculous he sounds.
/offtopic
What would sanctions consist of? I mean so what if the West doesn’t buy Iranian oil. It seems that China and India would only be too happy to get it, probably for less money.
I recall even Jimmy Carter made it clear that the Straights of Hormuz and he would not tolerate any interferece. So if the peaceful Carter takes that stand anyone else is going to be a bit tougher.
The New York Times article on this matter describes the sanctions briefly:
By its nature those sanctions are not designed to stop Iran from selling oil, but to make it more expensive for buyers to do business with Iran, which means if Iran wants to be able to sell as much oil as it was before it will have to offer it at a discount versus overall global price, because such legislation will make Iranian oil the most expensive oil in the world without Iran making adjustments to its sale price.
Would this be essentially the same as Operation Earnest Will? The United States protected Kuwaiti tankers from Iranian attacks in 1987-88.
I am guessing a war with Iran would resemble Desert Storm rather than Libya. We would be waging a more straightforward naval battle (or series of them) and not supporting an insurrection. Although you are correct about how it would go - like Desert Storm, it would be a turkey shoot for the air forces and then mopping up the mines.
One wonders how the aftermath would be handled. As ever, the temptation is mission creep - not just clear the mines and open up the Straits again, but while we are here, might as well destroy their nuclear capabilities. Etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
They claimed to have developed a supercavitating fast torpedo awhile back, the Hoot, reverse engineered from a Russian design. I wonder, if true, how many they might have and how effective it would prove against our blockade efforts.