Would you support war against Iran (if diplomacy does not work)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Very interesting preliminary analysis Redleg and Tribesman, despite the bickering.

I originally 'liked' the airborne/air assault/amphib opening salvo startegy myself, but with a better look at the maps, I see the difficulty - we (whoever that is} can 'take' many targets that way, but not 'hold' many of them. And "restoring order" after regime deposition would be a much more immediate requirement than airborne,etc units can handle. (I hope Iraq has taught us that, if little else).

The sheer logisitcs required for land attack cost much (maybe too much) in the way of time.

Which seems to lead to an Air Forces "shock-n-awe" show, with politically-unacceptable collateral dead bodies touted on international news and the www.

Beyond pinpoint special ops actions based on incredibly-accurate intel (no, I'm not smoking crack -I know the track record), what else is on the table for military strategy?

---

That is why if it comes down to having to use military force - the forces involved will actually be hit and run destruction forces of known sites, my best guess. Rangers, Special Forces, and the 101st Air Assualt Division. Some sites will not be touched because the risk to forces will be to great, and bombing will be done only on those.

The amount of forces needed will be significantly less, and the forces needed in the East will be greatly reduced. Since most of the known sites that I have seen on maps exist in the western half of Iran.

However the problem still remains the forces will need Russia consent if not active particpation and Turkmenistan airspace along with a Air Assualt staging area is a must.

Iraq is already occupied by the United States, along with parts of Afganstan. Pakistan is an ally and Turkmenistan alreadly has granted some airspace and bases for operations into Afganstan. Where does any of that required an invasion of United States forces or another collation force to start an invasion into Iran.

Iraq is occupied but not secure . The Province of Balluchi is occupied by the Pakistani authorities but is not secure . While Herat is partly occupied it is not secure , Farah and Nimruz are neither occupied or secure .
If you are not happy with the word invasion can you suggest a more appropriate one to describe moving large military forces into a hostile area to secure it ?

Lebanon is a country in the Med - it is not the Med., which contains many other countries along that coastline. If you wanted to point to the situation in Lebanon you should of only mentioned Lebanon.

I said as far as the Med , Lebanon is not the only location on that coast with an Iranian backed militia present , but I would have thought it was the most obvious .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Iraq is already occupied by the United States, along with parts of Afganstan. Pakistan is an ally and Turkmenistan alreadly has granted some airspace and bases for operations into Afganstan. Where does any of that required an invasion of United States forces or another collation force to start an invasion into Iran.

Iraq is occupied but not secure . The Province of Balluchi is occupied by the Pakistani authorities but is not secure . While Herat is partly occupied it is not secure , Farah and Nimruz are neither occupied or secure .
If you are not happy with the word invasion can you suggest a more appropriate one to describe moving large military forces into a hostile area to secure it ?

---

One does not invade an alreadly occupied country or a nation that allows the forces to establish forward assembly areas in which to launch a ground attack into another nation from. One secures ground within the nation state that is alreadly occupied, for a forward assembly area or a tactical assembly area. One secures an assembly area within the host nation. Bringing forces into the area - especially the size that is necessary to conduct either type of combat operations against Iran - will require the areas to be secured for the military operation. Currently there might be a need to secure those areas for civilian control also, but that makes for a different level of security then what is needed for a military operation to begin and for an assembly area for military personal.

Again you have a base lack of knowledge about terms, tactics and stragety. If your going to sharpshoot - at least have the coursity to understand the terms and use them correctly. If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. Your entitled to that opinion, and I don't have a problem with it at all. I prefer to allow the Iranians to develop the weapons and then invite them into the club of mutual destruction. Given that they can not even begin to play catch up with the system that are availabe to the United States currently. Just give them the friendly warning that any nuclear explosion anywhere in the world will subject them to possible nuclear strikes if its tracked to them in any shape or form.

However that does not mean that your question does not have a viable military solution, there are several from a full scale invasion to remove the regime and its nuclear capablity, to just limited hit and destroy strikes on the nuclear development and research sites.

The scenerio I painted for an invasion of Iran uses locations that would be viable for such an operation. Remember Tribesman I am not talking a battalion or brigade size elements to secure a large area - I am speaking of placing a large combat force into an area to conduct combat operations against enemy elements. That force will bring a level of security for its operations inherient in the planning and execution process of the mission.

The scope of the mission brings some security into the zone that one has to plan, even though its not in the area at the present. To claim an area must be secured before a military operation can begin into that zone - means one does not understand the military planning process. Securing the area is always part of the plan. During Desert Storm - the Forward Assembly areas in the deserts of Saudia Arabia were first secured by a significant military force which established checkpoints, roadblocks, desert patrols, and laid out the areas for the following units to occupy. Care to guess how many times I emplaced a defensive zone and conducted patrols in areas that were suppose to be secured for personel, both in combat and in training?

The lack of an area in the host country being secure for civilian control can be and must be planned for in any operation, even in a nation that has no conflict. Military operations and zones will be secured as part of the occupation of the Assembly areas, this is basic military doctrine.

Quote:

---

Lebanon is a country in the Med - it is not the Med., which contains many other countries along that coastline. If you wanted to point to the situation in Lebanon you should of only mentioned Lebanon.

I said as far as the Med , Lebanon is not the only location on that coast with an Iranian backed militia present , but I would have thought it was the most obvious .

---

Oh there are several areas along the Med that are adjacent to the area. Israel, Turkey, Greece, Eygpt, and all the other areas that could be used as air heads for air support operations into the combat zone. When you are attempting to point out only one country within the coastline has being of concern - its best to mention that country - not the geographic area. The Med covers a lot of terrority from Turkey to the straights.

If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

Poor Red you misunderstand entirely , your answer was far more than I was hoping for . And I thank you for it .
And Gawain as well for his two bits , a bit heavy on the blame Russia bit , but just the answer that I wanted . Try blaming China aswell , or take your pick from a multitude of countries .
Now it isn't an answer that I like or am happy about , but it is the only answer .
And the answer is , yes it could be done if lots of conditions were met , but there is absolutely no chance of those conditions being met .
Oh and the sharpshooting as you describe it was just to elicit a fuller answer from you on certain aspects ~;)
Though clearly that didn't work as you start going on about countries as air-heads and such when what I wanted was about eruption of conflict across the wider area . The ISS study on it even recons the Hashemite Kingdom will fall to the pro Iranian groups , thus closing your western land access into Iraq , but since Iraq will be an even bigger bloodbath than you would care to imagine that wouldn't really matter .

Oh and finally Red , all that about securing the area , sucuring an operating area in a hostile situation means more troops , more time , more expense , more risks and more bloodshed . Just another complicaton in an already complex situation .


Now then what happened to all those others who voted YES ?

Does Syria and Iran have a defensive alliance?

Does Syria and Iran have a defensive alliance?
Yes , as of February last year , it just happens that they are having a meeting today .
An unusual alliance , a Sunni domoinated arab republic and a Shi'te dominated Persian theocracy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

Poor Red you misunderstand entirely , your answer was far more than I was hoping for . And I thank you for it .

---

Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end. Maybe you should think about that if your wanting answers to questions that you pose.

Quote:

---

And Gawain as well for his two bits , a bit heavy on the blame Russia bit , but just the answer that I wanted . Try blaming China aswell , or take your pick from a multitude of countries .

---

Russia and China are playing their political gambit. No blame can be placed on them for Iran's desire to not comply with the agreement. They are only enablers.

Quote:

---

Now it isn't an answer that I like or am happy about , but it is the only answer .
And the answer is , yes it could be done if lots of conditions were met , but there is absolutely no chance of those conditions being met .

---

Again your making leaps to conclusions based upon lack of evidence. Not all conditions must be met to insure a successful negotation or a successful military strike to reduce the Iranian gambit to nuclear weapon status. Some critical conditions must be meet but not all for either course of action to be successful.

Time will tell if the conditions for successful negotations will be meet, if not a risk analysis concerning the military opitions will have to occur, and decisions reached based upon that assessment. If you want a course of action in detail based upon all available intelligence, troop strengths of the Iranian forces, what each course of action's impact on the political arenea of the area will be - your going to have to fork over a lot of cash to pay for that intelligence and the time necessary to lie out a comprensive plan that would meet all the conditions that you seem to want met.

Like I stated before - let Iran join the nuclear club - and give them the same warning as most nations have to face - if the use of a nuclear weapon is tracked to your nation - you get to recieve the payback in spades. You asked a question about viable military option into Iran - one has been given, in brief. A detail plan will cost - since it requires the resources and time to develope in full.

Quote:

---

Oh and the sharpshooting as you describe it was just to elicit a fuller answer from you on certain aspects ~;)
Though clearly that didn't work as you start going on about countries as air-heads and such when what I wanted was about eruption of conflict across the wider area .

---

If your going to sharpshoot understand the terms and how military operations work. Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting. Eruption of conflict into a wider area was not the question posed. The question posed was "Is their a viable military solution?" If you wanted a more detailed response about political impact in the area - well it will cost you some cash for the resources and time needed.

Quote:

---

The ISS study on it even recons the Hashemite Kingdom will fall to the pro Iranian groups , thus closing your western land access into Iraq , but since Iraq will be an even bigger bloodbath than you would care to imagine that wouldn't really matter .

---

I can image quit a bit of bloodshed - the amount of troop strength that I used - was taking into a consideration a 35% casuality rate among the attacking divisions - that is why the 20% figure for reinforcing divisions was included. However thier is one major error in the sketch of the plan - I do not know the available troop strengthes of the Iranian Military in all its forms. To provide any more spefic information would have to take into consideration of combat force ratios of these forces. 5 Mech Divsions along each axis of advance into Iraq should be enough - but a more detailed planning process would answer that question.

Quote:

---

Oh and finally Red , all that about securing the area , sucuring an operating area in a hostile situation means more troops , more time , more expense , more risks and more bloodshed . Just another complicaton in an already complex situation .

---

A understanding that was placed into the brief plan - that is what makes it a viable plan - do not confuse a brief plan placed onto the internet means that I do not understand the complexity of military operations. Did I mention only one division attacking into Iran from any of the locations? Did I mention only division size area of operations in the attack - not at all. Did I say it would not cost much in time, material, cash, and men?

That would be a non-viable plan. Five Mech/Armor divisions attacking from Southern Iraq into Iran - can provide the necessary forces to maintain security for thier operations - its inherient in all military operations.

What do you suspect would be the role of one of the five divisions that would be in the attack.

How many military operations have you been on? How many have you planned? You can mention any size level that you want. Willing to bet I got a lot more experience in developing operational plans then you do. Security is always a paramount part of any military planning.

Quote:

---

Now then what happened to all those others who voted YES ?

---

How many have the experience to discuss viable military operations?

Even you don't have the knowledge or the ability to discuss viable military operations in this area of the world. You don't understand the terms or the tactics of miltiary operations - and I don't have the time nor the inclination to provide that training to you. You have a seemling well informed understanding of the political aspects of the area, but little else, which has lead you into being caustic and astray in your responses because you did not like the answer to your question.

What is politically and militarily viable are not always one and the same. Some actions are militarily viable but not politically sound.

as a side note - again

I am also willing to bet this type of analysis has already been done by several military staffs to include Great Britian's, and the option that has most likely come forward as the best course of action to consider by the military commander is one where limited attack to destroy as many of the sites as possible, given a failure of negotations and United Nations support.

Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting.
Not at all , since in this case in two regions mentioned the host countries does not have control of the area , and in a third while the situation is not good at the moment any move on Iran would make the situation very very bad .
Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end.
Nah , thats just the way you respond to my posts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting.
Not at all , since in this case in two regions mentioned the host countries does not have control of the area , and in a third while the situation is not good at the moment any move on Iran would make the situation very very bad .

---

And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics. Denying that lack of knowledge shows something else also - care to quess what it is?

Quote:

---

Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end.
Nah , thats just the way you respond to my posts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer. :dizzy2: :book:

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer.
Poor redleg your amazing mind reading abilities have truly deserted you .

Does it really choke you up that much that you gave an even better reply than I had hoped for ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics.
So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .
Ah I see , the word you want is Liberation isn't it , you are going to liberate Baluchistan for Mussharraf .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer.
Poor redleg your amazing mind reading abilities have truly deserted you .

Does it really choke you up that much that you gave an even better reply than I had hoped for ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.

Quote:

---

And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics.
So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .
Ah I see , the word you want is Liberation isn't it , you are going to liberate Baluchistan for Mussharraf .

---

Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

The Vichy French Government was not a declared ally of the Allied Forces that landed in North Africa, it was a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Technically it was nuetral - so when attacking a neutral terrority one is invading that area. The forces under the command of Vichy Fance initially attempt to repel the invasion, a quick study of history will demonstrate how incorrect you are..

Again if you don't understand the terms, and refuse to understand the terms - then the discussion is mote, because you have alreadly degenerated into strawman arguement concerning the question that you asked. And it seems a case of history revision has developed also.

Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

What strawman and what revision ? Your friendly government offered you a territory from which to launch an invasion ,the friendly government did not control that territory . Just as Pakistan and Afghanistan do not have control over the territory concerned .

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.

and your mindreading skills are still woefully inadequate .
Learn to live with it Red , you gave just about the exact response that I was looking for , does that hurt too much for you ? .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

What strawman and what revision ? Your friendly government offered you a territory from which to launch an invasion ,the friendly government did not control that territory . Just as Pakistan and Afghanistan do not have control over the territory concerned .

---

Again a strawman and a revision - study the history of World War 2 a little bit more. The Free French did not control North Africa, the Vichy French government controled it. The Vichy French were a nuetral nation and a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Care to quess why initially the VIchy French government initially ordered the troops to repel the invasion?

The terrority in Afganstan and Pakistan are part of those nations. There is no other government controling the terrority in those nations.

Your arguement here is nothing but a strawman, the situations are not similiar in the way you are attempting, worst yet its an attempt to support your arguement by committing a revision of history, and finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

Pretty much if this is all you can come up with - the discussion is mote.

Quote:

---

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.

and your mindreading skills are still woefully inadequate .
Learn to live with it Red , you gave just about the exact response that I was looking for , does that hurt too much for you ? .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys. You are attempting to troll once again because you argument is inconsise, incomplete, and shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Resulting to ad hominem comments demonstrates that very well.

The Free French did not control North Africa,
Just as the Pakistani and Afghani governments do not control those provinces .
It is just you being you by argueing over word usage .
finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

You do not need to be a military genius to know that none of the military options are viable , or not viable in political reality .
Your posts have demonstrated that .
That is exactly the answer that I wanted from the question so that those who voted Yes could examine the reality of the situation .
Now you can go off and argue that Special Forces can carry out limited missions , but that ignores the fact that this will lead to full scale war , and full scale war is not viable , so that is a dead end .
Face it Red , you just cannot handle the fact that you have proved the point that I wanted to illustrate .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The Free French did not control North Africa,
Just as the Pakistani and Afghani governments do not control those provinces .
It is just you being you by argueing over word usage .

---

Again you are incorrect - the terms I used are very specific in how the military would apply the tactics for the missions assigned. If you do not understand the terms or what it requires - then you should ask for clarification, not develop strawman arguements concerning invasions, or revisionary history. One secures terrority for occupation of an Assembly area in the host or allied nation. If that nation maintains civil authority on that terrority does not change the terms or the military mission.

Invasion would be what happens to Iran if a collation of nations decided that the only recourse was to remove the threat posed by Iran and its desire to accquite nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

You do not need to be a military genius to know that none of the military options are viable , or not viable in political reality .

---

That is your opinion, of what the posts state. However you have not paid attention to the fact that I stated that for it to be vaible that it must be a collation of nations, and that Europe must be on board. Selective reading can be added to the list of your arguement flaws in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Your posts have demonstrated that .

---

My posts demonstrate that there is a way to conduct such an operation, based upon your question. What has been demonstrated is that the United States can not do it by itself because of the troop levels required to conduct a full scale invasion of Iran.

Quote:

---

That is exactly the answer that I wanted from the question so that those who voted Yes could examine the reality of the situation .

---

The reality is that it will take many divisions of troops to accomplish the task, that does not make it non-viable. You have failed to read the posts for the content.

Quote:

---

Now you can go off and argue that Special Forces can carry out limited missions , but that ignores the fact that this will lead to full scale war , and full scale war is not viable , so that is a dead end .

---

Again you have failed to read the posts, Limited missions included more then just Special Forces. And the rest is just your opinion. You have constructed a strawman arguement from my statements that does not exist.

Limited operations is a way to conduct such an operation with less risk and less troops. Political solutions would have to be done before such an operation commences. Again it goes to your initial question. Full scale war is not viable in your opinion - that was not the question asked nor was it the question answered.

Quote:

---

Face it Red , you just cannot handle the fact that you have proved the point that I wanted to illustrate .

---

The point was is there a viable solution to the question you asked, that was demonstrated. You have again reached for a strawman arguement regarding the subject.

Caustic responses are just that caustic responses. Ad hominem and Strawman arguements demonstrate that you did not want an honest answer to your question, nor did you want to particapate in a honest discussion. You wanted someone to analysis and show that it would take a lot of effort to conduct any operation of warfare against Iran. That I have demonstrated, but that effort does not make an operation non-viable given the nature of your question. Again your question was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

---

To be fair Red none of your ideas, despite being in some cases the best options, are actually workable without some heavy political fallout somewhere along the line. Because of this various parties will not take part in any military assault on Iran. Unless I have misread, you have already said as much yourself. So please, the pair of you, stop it with the pointless argueing. The derisive use of the terms "strawman" and "sharpshooting" or the use of poorly chosen historical situations to attack or defend mean nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

To be fair Red none of your ideas, despite being in some cases the best options, are actually workable without some heavy political fallout somewhere along the line.

---

What do you think war is? Its a result of heavy political fallout. Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply. If Europe is unwilling to do something about forcing Iran to comply there is no viable option but to allow Iran to build their nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Because of this various parties will not take part in any military assault on Iran. Unless I have misread, you have already said as much yourself. So please, the pair of you, stop it with the pointless argueing. The derisive use of the terms "strawman" and "sharpshooting" or the use of poorly chosen historical situations to attack or defend mean nothing.

---

Oh I like playing this game with Tribesman especially when behaves in the manner in which he is in this thread. Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saddam Hussein

Ha, Iran is a pushover! Let's Roll!

---

It seems that there are a few Alexanders here. But before we saddle up and charge in, did anyone take Iranian patriotism into account? A land war would be very costly in lives, for both attacker and defender. And I am afraid it would be a major setback for the reform movement.

I say we show patience (as it is a virtue), if Iran wants a War, they'll make it painfully clear, this little Show the Iranian President has been putting on is nothing more than tough talk, I think it would be in the US's best interest, and Iran's, to let the idiot say what he wants to say. I doubt that if the Iranian president declared war on the US, he would get little backing from his Army, and even less from the Ayatollahs, I say we (The US) play the good guys and not give them a reason to attack us, or we attack them other than malice, and that will give the world a clear goal in what needs to be done. I hate sounding like a coward, but sometimes taking the High Road is a more profiteable, and honorable course than vengeance.

If there were a conflict I can hardly imagine the US getting many allies to the cause, nor can I imagine the US having enough troops to occupy; if anything, the war would be a small-scale hit and run affair aimed at key targets.

Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

What revisionary history and what fundamental weakness ?
The areas you put forward are not viable , the forming of an able coilition is not viable , UN backing is not going to happen and the US cannot go it alone .
Air power alone is not going to work and will lead to war which is not viable , SpecOps alone is not going to work and will lead to war , which is not viable
A combination of the two will not work , and as above will lead to war . which guess what , is not viable .
So Red what is the weakness of that position ?

Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply
Once again your mind reading skills are letting you down , perhaps you should leave that crap to Uri Geller . Then again you are just as good at him at it , so keep it up eh:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

What revisionary history and what fundamental weakness ?

---

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.

Quote:

---

The areas you put forward are not viable , the forming of an able coilition is not viable , UN backing is not going to happen and the US cannot go it alone

---

You placed something in your question, and now your attempting to state something else.

Quote:

---

.
Air power alone is not going to work and will lead to war which is not viable

---

I did not mention air power alone - so your committing a strawman arguement

Quote:

---

, SpecOps alone is not going to work and will lead to war , which is not viable

---

I did not say Special Operations by itself either, so again a strawman arguement

Quote:

---

A combination of the two will not work , and as above will lead to war . which guess what , is not viable .

---

What do you think an attack of any sort into Iran is - it is war. Again a strawman arguement. Nor did I say a combination of Special Operations and Air. I clearly stated limited military operations.

Quote:

---

So Red what is the weakness of that position ?

---

Your failure to read what conditions were stated in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply
Once again your mind reading skills are letting you down , perhaps you should leave that crap to Uri Geller . Then again you are just as good at him at it , so keep it up eh:dizzy2:

---

So you didn't mention Europe in your question? Hmm that directily contradicts the question that you asked.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

---

Typical arguement from Tribesman ah hominem comments, strawman arguements, and attempts to sharpshoot others postions. Its been fun - but its obvious you haven't a clue about military operations, and you have decided that every course of action regarding Iran is not viable. Maybe you should not ask questions that you don't really want an answer to since you have alreadly reached the conclusion that you wish.

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.

What revisionary history ? are you imagining things ?

You placed something in your question, and now your attempting to state something else.

The question is there plain enough Red
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

There are several possibilities , each is dependant on several conditions being met , those conditions cannot be met so therefore none of the possibilities is viable .

I did not mention air power alone - so your committing a strawman arguement


Look at my initial statement , your military has come to that conclusion as have others , so no strawman there Red , just a restating of the basics .

I did not say Special Operations by itself either, so again a strawman arguement
What are limited hit and destroy missions if they are not special ops Red ?


What do you think an attack of any sort into Iran is - it is war. Again a strawman arguement.
No strawman there either Red , a restating of the basics , war is not viable so acts of war are not viable .

Your failure to read what conditions were stated in the discussion.

What conditions ? all of the conditions put forward cannot be met .

So you didn't mention Europe in your question? Hmm that directily contradicts the question that you asked.

Learn to read Red , the preamble was not a question . The absence of one of these ? is generally a bit of a giveaway

There's a pretty straighforward comparison between the 2nd Amendment and Iran being permitted to have nuclear weapons. Thinking about it, the similarities are quite striking...and I think that people who might generally argue on one side of one issue might well argue the other side of the other one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

There's a pretty straighforward comparison between the 2nd Amendment and Iran being permitted to have nuclear weapons. Thinking about it, the similarities are quite striking...and I think that people who might generally argue on one side of one issue might well argue the other side of the other one.

---

I fail to see how not letting an unstable therocracy have nukes can be compared to a law abiding citzen owning a gun. Nukes and hunting rifles are two way diffrent things. I cant destroy Isreal with a rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.

What revisionary history ? are you imagining things ?

---

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably, you demonstrated not only your lack of knowledge about military operations and terms, but your willingness to change history to meet your stance in an arguement.

The rest of your post I find amusing as well. But I will just leave it alone. Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.

Iran ustable? Untrustworthy maybe, unpredictable maybe, but not unstable.

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably,
Nope , no revisionism there at all . It must be your imagination .

Iran ustable? Untrustworthy maybe, unpredictable maybe, but not unstable.
It is unstable , hence the military deployment and mass detentions in the North West, and the clampdown on the reformers .
Iran has been unstable since before the revolution . The revolution was carried through by a multitude of different groups , most of those groups , though happy to get rid of the regime were not happy with the new one . They have for the past quarter century been trying to get what they expected from their revolution , without much luck . The one thing that does bring these groups together with the regime and stabilises it is foriegn intervention , for some reason or other that seems to unite most of them as Iranians . There are some groups who do side with the foriegners , but they tend to be the crazy extremists with very little domestic support .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Good point. I would hope a coalition, but I doubt that could ever happen considering the cowardness and lack of action of most United Nation members. Its much easier for them to pass resolution after resolution and recieve kick backs from oil revenues than to actually do anything. So lets pretend like the UN had a pair and say that a global coalition would go to war. Would you then support it?

---

The world should gang up on Iran. Absolutely, yes. A nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Who else can Iran share these technology? (WWWIII, anyone?)

The coalition needs more than the US and Israel. But Iran shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons.

Also, I don't believe in the MAD argument really. I mean, if the people who control these devices have no fear of death and going to heaven is a reward, what's to hold them back from using it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

I say we show patience (as it is a virtue), if Iran wants a War, they'll make it painfully clear, this little Show the Iranian President has been putting on is nothing more than tough talk, I think it would be in the US's best interest, and Iran's, to let the idiot say what he wants to say. I doubt that if the Iranian president declared war on the US, he would get little backing from his Army, and even less from the Ayatollahs, I say we (The US) play the good guys and not give them a reason to attack us, or we attack them other than malice, and that will give the world a clear goal in what needs to be done. I hate sounding like a coward, but sometimes taking the High Road is a more profiteable, and honorable course than vengeance.

---

The more that I think about it, the more I tend to agree. I'm changing my vote to : Yes, if they show military agreesion.