Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
As long as there isn't some sort of great 'Tet' Offensive, we're going good. The issue has been submerged under the economy and energy in the media, and they're even confused over terminology (Iraq = civil war anymore).
The Iraqi Army even seems better than the Vietnamese army in trying to fight AQ. While that may be because there are more US advisors on the ground or whatever, it may be because they are actually (get ready to be shocked) capable.
So, we can stay in Iraq so long as the economy is screwing us over. :2thumbsup:
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Odin
You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.
Have you ever wondered why the North Koreans always want talks between the United States and North Korea only. One thing President Bush has been correct in doing is pushing the six nation talks whenever a meeting with North Korea is to happen. How much of a necessity of our presence in South Korea is determined many factors, one being the fact that the Korean War while unlikely to return to a hot war, it is still technically going on. Now then you also have the political reality of why the South Koreans continue to request our presence and their desire for us to remain.
Quote:
Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.
South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.
Quote:
Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.
There is a spefic requirement under the United Nations mission to South Korea for the United States. This requirement has nothing to do with what you believe we have done recently in regards overplaying our international police/deliver of freedom role. This mission has a far older precendent then the recent. The requirement of the committment remains.
Quote:
But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.
I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world. Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis? Now my data is about 8 years old, but what you believe is an antiquated mission parameter and international commitment still requires a committment to the initial obligations.
Quote:
its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.
Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.
Quote:
My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.
Go much deeper into the subject. Your correct South Korea can and does provide for it's own defense. The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.
Quote:
I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.
And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.
Quote:
Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.
Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.
You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations. A knowledge that is continually supported when I happen to read english versions of news from both North and South Korea. Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations? A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.
So far you only speak of finicial not political. When you actually begin to address the political situation in Korea then your comparision might become easier to see, but for now - your only swinging at the ball and haven't even touched it yet.
Give you another hint read the English version of both North and South Korean papers.
And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?:oops:
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)
Then again since you wrote ...
Quote:
He made an absolute statement here, let him back it up with a reference, you posting bails him out (unless he has the source to verify his statement of fact).
...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .:yes:
Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?
Well Odin ?...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.
Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.
Quote:
I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world.
I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.
Quote:
Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis?
Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.
Quote:
Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.
If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.
Quote:
The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.
that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact
Quote:
The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.
Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions
Quote:
And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.
No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.
Quote:
You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations.
And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.
Quote:
Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations?
In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.
Quote:
A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.
Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....
Quote:
And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.
Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?:oops:
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)
Then again since you wrote ... ...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .:yes:
Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?
Well Odin ?...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Thanks tribes, I knew you wouldnt be able to support your position with something other then your tripe and :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
However the request stands, care to support your claim that Isreal cannot conduct an airstrike on Iran due to (what was the 1st one?) territorial claims by hostile nations, or the inability to travel the distance?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
I see odin you havn't even read Panzers link on the assesment :thumbsdown: Thats not very clever of you is it
Quote:
However the request stands
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Don't you realise that all the relevant information has already been posted that fully answers your request and doesn't leave you a leg to stand on .
Your position is rather akin to claiming that America can put a man on mars next year because they have a space program and put men on the moon before .
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .
Yes Odin the writing is definately on the wall for this one going ahead , right next to the writing that says Clinton is going to be your next president .
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .
No tribes my view is that Israel is capable of making the air strike and if the Iranians continue to persue nukes the writting on the wall based on historical precedent is very clear.
The fact you want to dance around this is indicative of your inability to admit when your wrong. Additionally you posted no evidence what so ever to support your claims which is becoming a frequent unattractive practice for you.
But hey, your not letting me down my expectations for you were low going in. :thumbsup:
Of course the offer is still there, care to support your claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribesman
So Odin since Israel doesn't have the ability to do the job the job is not going to be done by Israel no matter how much you like to think that the writing is on the wall . Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases . which means you should think a little more before writing....
Maybe you should think a little more before writing because by your own contraditction you state
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribesman
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .
:idea2: guess you werent thinking were you? so does this qualification mean that they infact can do the job tribesman? or is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Note to Redleg and Tribesman as much as I am enjoying the back and forths I might have to go out of town on business and wont be able to check this board for a few days. I can probably reply again today later on but if its pressing both are more then welcome to PM me.
Again it isnt by choice but practicality that I may not be able to offer adequate replies to the poppycock I know both of you will put forth for a few days. :wiseguy:
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Additionally you posted no evidence what so ever to support your claims which is becoming a frequent unattractive practice for you.
I didn't have to , I told you where all the information is freely available , plus Panzers link does much of the work for me (perhaps you should read it as it isn't that long)
Quote:
guess you werent thinking were you? so does this qualification mean that they infact can do the job tribesman? or is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No Odin because each element is conditional on other factors and there is absolutely no way those factors can be met , they could magicly double the range of the I versions and still not be able to do it .
Quote:
is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?
No odin its more reasons why the writing isn't on the wall at all .
Quote:
The fact you want to dance around this is indicative of your inability to admit when your wrong.
That is so funny when it is you who have come into it without the faintest idea of what is involved and seem to base your whole arguement on "they bombed Iraq and Syria didn't they " .
Before you try and tell someone they are wrong it might be a good idea for you to find out a little of what the subject involves :yes:
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshal Murat
As long as there isn't some sort of great 'Tet' Offensive, we're going good. The issue has been submerged under the economy and energy in the media, and they're even confused over terminology (Iraq = civil war anymore).
The Iraqi Army even seems better than the Vietnamese army in trying to fight AQ. While that may be because there are more US advisors on the ground or whatever, it may be because they are actually (get ready to be shocked) capable.
So, we can stay in Iraq so long as the economy is screwing us over. :2thumbsup:
The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.
Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Odin
Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.
Unfortunately its not potato crops that are being compared. Your comparision is mote since you haven't addressed the political aspects of Korea. Your attempting to compare apples to watermelons - both are fruits however both have different requirements for growing and harvest.
Quote:
I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.
I find your inability to address the political aspects of Korea telling about your knowledge of the area. So call me arrogant in that aspect, but lack of knowledge weakens your comparision to the point that it is ineffective.
Quote:
Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.
Said infiltrations are handled by the South Korean's. Happened to see the running gun battle one night between the two nations. So again do you wish to address the actual political reality of the reason United States Forces remain in Korea? or are you going to continue to attempt to compare apples to watermelon without understanding the requirements of either.
Quote:
If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.
Again incorrect. Your lack of knowledge is telling, since its not splitting hairs its actual stating what the facts were. What forces were in Korea in 1950 when the North Invade South Korea? You do realize what happened to Task Force Smith don't you?
Quote:
that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions
Again ever heard of the tree cutting incident in the 1970's. Again I do discuss facts something your comentary is solely lacking. If you wish to make a claim that the Korea is comparable to Iraq it means that you should be able to demonstrate that claim, your comparsion is lacking in any factual comparision to the two. Since I left the army in 2000 - by clearance remains the same as it did, care to guess what it was?
Quote:
No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.
Again you are making a poor comparision. Signing long term base leases in Iraq does not equate to South Korea. Your continue to claim they are the same but you dont understand what you are comparing or your so blinded by lack of knowledge between the two that you have no ability to grasp how weak your comparision truely is. You would be better comparing bases in Iraq to bases in Europe or Japan. Both start out as occupations by the way.
Quote:
And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.
First thing about Korea that you have said that is somewhat accurate. To bad you draw bad comparisions from your opinion.
Quote:
In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.
Their stalled economic reality does not lessen their military offensive threat. The weaking economic position of North Korea actually increases their potential to do something stupid like invade South Korea once again.
Quote:
Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....
Yep and until the scheduled change the committment remains does it not?
Quote:
Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.
And again you would be incorrect in your arguement - the intent of the constitution was to allow for extended treaties that would be reviewed and approved by congress. Has that intent been violated in anyway, other then based upon your opinion? If Bush is able to convince congress to approve of a long term defense treaty with Iraq, the constitution has not been violated, and one still could not make the comparision that your attempting to make. Situations are completely different between the two nations.
Starting out with one was a completely defensive action benefiting an allied nation, the other is an offensive war of choice. And the comparision completly falls apart from there.
Again you would do better to compare any long term base lease with Germany then with Korea. However that would further weaken you arguement since the intended purpose of those bases in Germany was successful.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.
I am aware of the disaster that the Tet Offensive was, but the effect it had on the media and the general public perception was what I was referring to. If AQ were to launch a major offensive through Baghdad, actually RPG-ing the U.S. Embassy, then I wouldn't be surprised if everyone saw Iraq as going backwards.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.
Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.
The problem with Iraq is not the military situation, but the political, and I don't see how there have been any improvements politically at all. Iran still wants and is able to get the largest chunk of influence in post-US Iraq, the Saudis aren't going to let them have this without a fight, the Kurds still want independence, Turkey still won't tolerate such. The US can stall all this as long as they remain there, but it's going to cost them dearly in money and political capital (they can probably afford the blood), and the moment they leave it'll play itself out as predicted anyway.
I said some time ago that a pan-Iraqi vision was the only way of solving all this, something for all Iraqis to unite behind so they can stand up as a single country against outsiders. I suggested that playing the ogre whom all Iraqis hate, or even playing out a nominal defeat against the Iraqis, might be a price worth paying for that goal of pan-Iraq. Related to this, I said a couple of years ago that, of the three goals of democracy, stability and a pro-American government, only two were possible, and the US should choose which two it wanted. Last year, I updated this by saying that even two out of three was over-optimistic, and that only one was possible, and everything should be directed towards the goal of stability. Right now, I see even that as less and less possible. Things have quietened down a bit in Iraq, but I don't see that as a good sign. AFAICS, Iraq has been thoroughly subdued, and now, when the day comes for the US to leave, it will be a walkover for any regional powers that care to play the game, for I think all aspiration towards an Iraqi nation is gone.
So the question of whether the war is won or lost is irrelevant, IMHO.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
I didn't have to , I told you where all the information is freely available , plus Panzers link does much of the work for me (perhaps you should read it as it isn't that long)
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No Odin because each element is conditional on other factors and there is absolutely no way those factors can be met , they could magicly double the range of the I versions and still not be able to do it .
Tribesman it really comes down to one simple fact, if Israel had the ability to take out Iran's nuclear ambitions they would of done so, back in the early phases of Iran's building up of thier program. Any discussion about Israel's ability must first take this into account. Its very telling to me that neither have attempted to demonstrate why Israel has not launched an attack as of yet.
However I will continue to just read your arguement since your more then correct on why they haven't elected to attempt it with the new aircraft they have. Frankly Israel lacks the ability and will not do so until they face destruction by Iran, and even then its going to be done as a Mutual Assured Destruction scenerio much like the US-USSR nuclear weapon standoff.
Even the United States with all our tech are still primarily focused on negogations and diplomacy in getting Iran to limit their development. The genie is out of the bottle for Iran in regards to nuclear weapons and everyone knows it. Now its about doing the same thing with Iran that was done with North Korea - attempt to contain it as best as it can be. My best guess is that the United States is not going to war with Iran over Nuclear Technology, if we do it will be a whole series of combination of events.
Just like the recent talk of establishing a dipolmatic office once again in Iran demonstrates.
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
However I will continue to just read your arguement since your more then correct on why they haven't elected to attempt it with the new aircraft they have.
Well the thing there Red is they do have plans to upgrade all (or the majority of) the other 15s and 16s to I versions , but they havn't managed to get the time or the money to do so due to other events , same with purchasing new tankers and buying enough bunker busters .
All the while Iran has been spending like a politician at election time on new equipment and upgrades .(just like some of the other countries involved who now have a very different military than they did at the time of the Iraq raid) .
It really at the moment would be a case of putting all your eggs on one basket with a dodgy handle and a badly patched hole and I cannot for the life of me see Israel doing anything apart from leaving their eggs in the coop .
Re: The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
It really at the moment would be a case of putting all your eggs on one basket with a dodgy handle and a badly patched hole and I cannot for the life of me see Israel doing anything apart from leaving their eggs in the coop .
And the last time Israel even thought about putting all its eggs in that type of basket they believed they were facing destruction. I just don't see it now being the case.
While Israel has some really screwy policies, I don't seem them starting a war they know will end with their destruction. They will wait until they face destruction before putting all the eggs in such a basket.
What is telling is that while Iran continues to build its Nuclear program the rest of the world basically sits on its collective hands. Regardless of the rethoric coming out of Washington, its still amounts to squat when you look at what is actually going on.
Israel will not attack Iran on its own, and the United States is not in a position to engage Iran militarily, even by proxy with Israel. The Rethoric out of Washington will have to significantly change to see any increase in a possiblity of an airstrike against Iran coming from the United States.
I really wish those that believe a military strike by Israel will happen could demonstrate how Israel would accomplish such a task. Even a very rough demonstation would be okay. Like what would be the flight path, where would the strikes roughly happen, and how would the aircraft and more important the pilots be recovered. Given Israel's military resources and the locations of Iran's facialities. The two just dont add up to a plausible strike. The closest comes from Panzer but its based upon capablities of Israel and Iran of around the 1990 to 1995 time frame, the few bases that Israel can attack on their own with the range of their aircraft, will have been reinforced with multiple layers of air defense by now, and most likely are not the key facialities that make up the current Iran nuclear program.
But then this discussion is on wether Iraq is being won or lost, Iran is a player in that conflict's outcome, but their nuclear ambitions have no impact on that outcome at all. But then I find the discussion amusing almost as amusing as comparing the situation in Korea to that of Iraq. One must have an understanding of the situation to form a vaible opinion.
That is why I dont enter into discussions about how the conflict is currently going - from the military standpoint the answer is easy, but the political situation and reality shows that the outcome is still questionable, leaning toward a major and complete political defeat for the United States and at best only a minor political defeat with severe regional problems in the Middle-East for the United States for years to come.
Entering into a conflict with Iran even by proxy would only increase the severity of the political defeat in the region.
What's even better Tribesman is that both sidebars that were initiate by someone have made the news today, and both demonstrate why his arguements are incorrect
