Iran’s War Against The United States

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain could you finish with that propaganda plz :) You can say "we are able to win with Iran" but at the moment USA is far to weak to do it.

Thats a quite convoluted statement.

Into Afghanistan and Iraq you had strong support from people of these countries (they hate you now but its different issue). You can't expect it into Iran.

Then its all lies that most young Iranians dont like their government.

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs. Their attacking us as we speak. There is already a war going on is my point.

wouldn't say this is indisputable as there seems to be scant if any hard evidence of this.

Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say

Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say
Arms Shipments Tracked To Iraqi, Afghan Groups

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page A14

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

In Iraq, Iranian 240mm rockets, which have a range of up to 30 miles and could significantly change the battlefield, have been used recently by Shiite extremists against U.S. and British targets in Basra and Baghdad, the officials said. Three of the rockets have targeted U.S. facilities in Baghdad's Green Zone, and one came very close to hitting the U.S. Embassy in the Iraqi capital, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias

U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias

Listen to this story... by Jamie Tarabay

Iraqi soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded
Enlarge
Ahmad al-Rubaye

An Iraqi army soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded at Baghdad's al-Mansur neighborhood, Feb. 11, 2007. At least one person was killed and three others were wounded in the blast. AFP/Getty Images



All Things Considered, February 11, 2007 · U.S. officials say they have evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi extremist groups. They also say they have proof showing that orders to these militant groups come from the highest levels in Iran's government.

The American officials spoke on condition of anonymity. No recording devices were allowed at the briefing, but those speaking said they were comfortable with their claims.

There was a slideshow depicting three main routes from Iran into Iraq which, the officials maintain, are used to smuggle in weapons and weapons parts. Some weapons parts were also on display in the briefing room including the mortar round parts that an explosives expert says was manufactured in Iran. The expert also presented a particular brand of rocket-propelled grenade that he said was manufactured only in Iran.

But the U.S. officials focused mainly on a deadlier version of the improvised explosive device: the explosively formed penetrator. It's a tin-can-shaped explosive covered with a lid of copper that turns into molten rock and pierces through armored vehicles. The officials said the use of this weapon has nearly doubled since it was first introduced in May 2004. More than 170 coalition forces have been killed by it, they said, and more than 620 have been wounded.

Iran was operating in Iraq through extremist groups, the officials claim. They said that among those groups were radical elements of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

The officials again noted the detention of five Iranian men in a raid last month. They said one was a senior operations chief for the Quds Force, an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which answers to Iran's religious leaders.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

[Odin]

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

Well Don we disagree, for the simple reason Gawain in his brilliance hasnt proposed anything by way of military action in this thread. He has given absolutely no specific at all as to what he thinks should be done.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

To a large degree this assumes invasion, invasion is unlikely for the reasons you cite, but air strikes are more plausable.

If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

Big "if", and the ending "we will lose" I disagree if infact what you state would happen came to fruition, a WWII total war effort.

Again I might have missed Gawain commenting on an invasion, if I did I appologize, but its clear to me that the force structure for air strikes against nuclear facilities exsist right now, and most likely thats the course of action (if any) that would occur.


Right after I clicked post Gawain posted:

What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.

So that pretty much negates most of my post.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So that pretty much negates most of my post.

No I would try your way first. Im not saying lets ratchet it up and all go to war today. But these guys have been poking and pushing us around for years looking to see what they can get away with and I think theve pretty much come to the same conclusion as OBL. That we are a paper tiger and that the rest of the west is apaethitic. Its time to put up or shut up. They have to take us seriously. But if this guy really thinks its his duty to bring about the end of the world what can you do? What if you have a nation that itself is a giant suicide bomber threatening to explode?

Im saying that if we do go to war it has to be a united front. Not just the US vs Iran. Doing anything on our own again would not only be foolish but reckless.

[Odin]

Im saying that if we do go to war it has to be a united front. Not just the US vs Iran. Doing anything on our own again would not only be foolish but reckless.

I agree a lot of the west is apathetic, a united front inst necessary at all, because the goal shouldnt be elimination of Iran, regime change, or societal correction.

It should be to eliminate thier ability to produce nuclear capabilities. That can be achieved via airstrikes by the U.S. alone.

Look at the current deployment of forces, this is exactly the course that will happen, as the capability is there to achieve airstrikes only.

[Don Corleone]

I disagree about the airstrikes and slowly building up aggression. This is an all or none affair. It's like being a little-bit pregnant, it just can't be done. We're either going to go to war with Iran, and in doing so we need to do everything we can do to see to it that the war is over as quickly as possible and with the fewest casualties to our side as possible, or we need to find alternate outlets for our hostility.

Airstrikes will mean US troop casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not in fortified positions. Iran's response to an airstrike will be short range and medium range missile fire and artillery shelling into our troops in these areas.

I don't see any middle ground here. Either we hit Iran quickly, with overwhelming force and get them wrapped up as quickly as possible (I'm talking Shock & Awe and then some, followed by 10 or 11 division, the 7 or 8 I cited was to actually have a shot at winning even long term).

We also need to be formulating NOW an extraction policy for getting the hell out of there when we're done. Identify what goals we wish to accomplish, do them, and then getting the Hell out of Dodge.

That's what I recommend if we do anything. I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further. I think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes. We can't even get Britain and Israel to quit trading with them, let alone China or Russia.

[Don Corleone]

As for getting anybody else to sign on with us for engaging in a fight with Iran, what planet are you guys living on? The only people who would sign on for that are the Israelis, and we're trying to keep them out of it. Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

Hopefully it will never come to that. But if they dont at least stand behind us in this I think the world is in deep doo doo.

[Odin]

As for getting anybody else to sign on with us for engaging in a fight with Iran, what planet are you guys living on? The only people who would sign on for that are the Israelis, and we're trying to keep them out of it. Do you really see Britain, or Australia or Canada sending troops (or jets) to Tehran?

I have been clear on my position in the past about the antiquated alliance structures we are in. We need to get out of them and not rely on alliances. thats why total war needs to be total war, not the halfassed wars Bush has us in.

Total war with Iran isnt necessary, no one needs to send troops there.

[Odin]

[QUOTE=Don Corleone]

I disagree about the airstrikes and slowly building up aggression. This is an all or none affair. It's like being a little-bit pregnant, it just can't be done.

If you believe its all or nothing your entitled, my position is to stop thier nuclear capability only, Im not intrested in how they run thier affairs internally.

or we need to find alternate outlets for our hostility.

Maybe we can give tax breaks to corporations that sell them nuclear technology? Sarcasm aside Don, are you of the mindset that Iran isnt going to develop a military application for nuclear technology? If you are, okay we disagree again, if your not then isnt the hostility justified? I concede it comes down to intent, but are you a gambler?

Airstrikes will mean US troop casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not in fortified positions. Iran's response to an airstrike will be short range and medium range missile fire and artillery shelling into our troops in these areas.

Agreed, but I dont think this will happen tomorrow, and if I had my way the troops would be out of the middle east anyway. that said, I agree that it puts troops in harms way, war does that, but there is nothing procluding a drawn down of troops before the strike occurs. Seems to me thats going to happen around sept anyway when MR Bush looses his republican blockade in the senate.

Think the 2 carrier strike forces will still be in hormuz during the draw down and after? I do.

I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further.

more then there is now?

I

think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes.

I agree to this, I personally think Rice should go to Tehran and talk to them one on one and attempt to find a way out of it. However back in reality, the ideal situation rarely occurs, and thus it behooves us to discuss the likelyhood of possibilities within the constraints of said reality.

[Petrus]

That's what I recommend if we do anything. I still contend it's just going to breed more anger and distance our allies from us further. I think it's a mistake, and I think we need to start looking to see if there's anything we can do to find some sort of middle ground with the Iranians. For the past 30 years, we have steadfastly refused to even have diplomatic contact with them, let alone negotiate any sort of agreements. Clearly the deep-freeze diplomacy ain't working. Neither are our embargoes. We can't even get Britain and Israel to quit trading with them, let alone China or Russia.

I think that's the biggest problem.

A total lack of diplomatic and commercial relationship leaves only one option, sabres rattling while other negotiate in your place or war.
The limits of this system can be shown even with a small and weak country such as North Corea.

In the case of Iran it lets you powerless and passive, depending on other's goodwill. This is never a good situation and I think it makes things really bad when mutual relationship is degraded, such as it is now after the Irak fiasco.

You can see the difference with a country such as Pakistan, hard line islamist, terrorist active supporter, atomic bomb owner and atomic technology seller dictatorship. The relative danger represented by Pakistan seems much greater than the one of Iran. But Iran is presented as something utterly evil while it is possible to negotiate some forms of agreements with Pakistan.

The tools used to deal with those countries are simply different as are the objectives they can manage to reach.

By choosing permanent confrontation, as long as you do not have the means to fully dominate military, economically, politically and diplomatically your opponent your only reachable objective is confrontation.

If you want to reach some form of compromise, than you must negotiate, put economic or political pressure, hence have some sort of normal relationship with your opponent.

[Odin]

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs.

I see it very clearly.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

No kidding

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

And I am an isloationist. But they are attacking us and killing our soldiers. If thats not war what is?

Are you done with your rant?

What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

Syria maybe. Is Pakistan or Indonesia supplying men and arms that are killing our soldiers?

I see it very clearly.

Im glad Im not alone. Its like the old oil change commercial. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. The problem is later costs a lot more.

[Slyspy]

Sorry Gawain, but you are a war mongerer. Of the worst kind because you don't seem to be aware of the consequences. You are most certainly not an isloationist, nor a libertarian, if you believe that foreign military ventures and total war are necessary and desirable.