01-31-2007, 02:43 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 1,287
|
I know it's only Drudge
and I know it's only speculation at this point, but if, IF, this report is true...
"NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing... " No matter what you think about the war, don't you have to respond 'in kind' to Iran? Or at least tell Maliki he has to respond to Iran (if the report is true)? In this senerio, if Maliki fails to confront the Iranians, I say let's get out of Iraq by the end of next weekend. |
01-31-2007, 04:12 AM | #2 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
It is not a shock or breaking news to anyone that Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq. We should stay in Iraq and keep Iran surrounded. However, IF we stay in Iraq (which the outlook is not so hot right now) we should be sure to let our military fight to win. That means using air power which, while successful at achieving victory, will be costly in the end towards civilian lives.
Also: we should deal with Iran in a very clear, concise manner. No more summits or multi-party talks. In fact, no talks until their leadership takes a very different course. Also, the US should prepare to deal with Iran in a Clausewitz manner: remember war is a continuation of politics by other means. Finally, we in the US need to prepare for what could be one of the darkest days in history. It is very negative, but we should prepare to pay whatever costs (that is economically, politically, or even militarily) to win this global conflict. However, the American public is not ready or willing to bear that burden. |
01-31-2007, 04:30 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 1,287
|
Right, I agree. However, supplying insurgents with equipment and general support vs. directly giving them plans to kill US solders through a specific and defined mission are two very different things.
|
01-31-2007, 04:47 AM | #4 | |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
Quote:
As for invasion. Ai yi yi! Our poor military is beat down and overwhelmed with deployments and Iraq has only a third of the population of Iran, and much easier terrain. We could take out the regime obviously, but holding the place together and restoring something better would be at least 3 times as hard as Iraq. |
|
01-31-2007, 06:56 AM | #5 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
As for Iran, if they really want to test the US, it would be very easy to flex our muscle and let them experience a nuclear winter. If they want to play hardball, we should show them how it's played. With Iran, the US needs to put to task the Cobra Kai method of striking first and striking hard. They want to develop a nuclear program and while I don't have proof of it, I have no doubt in my mind that they want to build nukes and use them on the US and any other western culture that doesn't think the way they do. Some will think me a war monger, but my idea of peace is letting those that would harm me, my family, my friends and my country that if they want to push it, they will die.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
01-31-2007, 03:39 PM | #6 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
I'm not suggesting a full invasion of Iran at this point. Precision bombing of certain areas to crimple their economy or their war-making capacity would be a beginning. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what war is, and I am not the one making these decisions.
Also, while our military is wearing down, and a full scale invasion at this point seems unlikely, Iran has a few things Iraq doesnt. The chances of sectarian violence following a military engagement is much smaller considering the breakdown of their population. Also, their population is much more westernized, and in fact there is a large dissent within the population who are pro-western (more so than many in Iraq). Especially among the highly educated. Finally, Iran tends to have overall a more educated population and a bureaucracy and infrastructure in place already which is able to run the country. These two things would seem to make a regime change easier than Iraq. Overall, your point is well taken. The US strategy in that region has been mixed messages since at least 1980. I think what will actually happen is Iran will get nuclear weapons (assuming they dont have them already). Following that, it's a whole new ball game. |
Bookmarks |
|
|