0
StreetScooby

So, what if we do attack Iran?

Recommended Posts

Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



I asked the question in another thread but received no replies. I am at a loss as to why Iran could/should be attacked in the first place. What would be the reasons and objectives? What would constitute winning?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



I asked the question in another thread but received no replies. I am at a loss as to why Iran could/should be attacked in the first place. What would be the reasons and objectives? What would constitute winning?

Getting their oil for Bush and Co.;)
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



I asked the question in another thread but received no replies. I am at a loss as to why Iran could/should be attacked in the first place. What would be the reasons and objectives? What would constitute winning?

Getting their oil for Bush and Co.;)



I'd rather get no reply to a serious question than that old dead horse response.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The proper term is "vitally-challenged equine".

B|

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Unilaterally attacking Iran would be a major blunder, far bigger than Iraq.

So it's a moot point, IMO.

mh
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



I asked the question in another thread but received no replies. I am at a loss as to why Iran could/should be attacked in the first place. What would be the reasons and objectives? What would constitute winning?

Getting their oil for Bush and Co.;)



I'd rather get no reply to a serious question than that old dead horse response.

Hey. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer. To bad the answer is the TRUTH:P
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The proper term is "vitally-challenged equine".

B|

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Unilaterally attacking Iran would be a major blunder, far bigger than Iraq.

So it's a moot point, IMO.

mh



Moot? Are you suggesting that it won't happen because it would be a major blunder?

Have not politicians made major blunders in the past, with some regularity?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?



Interesting. History, no matter how it's written, tends to be revised over time. Those revisions are shaped by perception, which is, in turn, spawned by desire more than anything. Look at how there is such heated conflict over how Iraq is being covered (thus written, thus spawning a desire to revise).

So many people are talking about action against Iran in the context of an invasion. If the US were to directly strike, an invasion is not necessary at the onset. Where and how might Iran retaliate? Invade Iraq to strike the US? No one would advocate that. Strike Israel? That too, is a stretch.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where and how might Iran retaliate?



The US has thousands of service personnel on ships in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has thousands of anti-ship missiles within range of those ships.

Phalanx (et al) aren't that good. The maths would be pretty simple.

Casualties would be massive if Iran decided to make a large scale missile attack against US Naval assets... not to mention the trillions of dollars tied up in such large vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



How about:

Iran declares support for Lebanon & Syria against Israelis and masses army to march on Israel. Iranian Army approaches Iraqi Border - Coalition troops also mass in respose They may even mass on the Iranian border first... Just in case.

Iranians attack coalition Border-Monitoring-Post(s) in Iraq & massacre staff. Several bodies in Iranian commando uniforms found at site of massacre.

Coalition declares war on Iran in response to their act of war... "Regime-Change" was the only option to defend democracy & secure the historic borders of the Mid-East.

It's always worked in the past. Just change the country names.

In effect, they'll just re-hash the old Herman Goering doctrine.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And we win.

How to write history such that it'll be remembered they were blatantly aggressive in a losing situation?

Purely hypothetical question...



I asked the question in another thread but received no replies. I am at a loss as to why Iran could/should be attacked in the first place. What would be the reasons and objectives? What would constitute winning?



For the same reason we attacked Iraq - OIL!

All we need is for them to give us some other pretense - and by flouting and taunting on the nuclear issue they are doing so and playing right into this administrations hands. Bush and cronies are unscrupulous greedy bastards, but they are not stupid. They play this game very well.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Getting their oil for Bush and Co.;)



I'd rather get no reply to a serious question than that old dead horse response.



Well then, why do you think we invaded Iraq? You'll have to get creative because WMD and Al Queda have proven to be BS.

If you cite the need to Liberate Iraq then you are either in the bumper sticker business or have not paid much attention to our governments behavior related to all the other major atrocities in the world.

We've ignored far worse murderous rampages and genocidal activities repeatedly, as we are ignoring another right now - TODAY - so all the mindless ditto-heads with the Liberate Iraq signs need to add a few banners to their lawn if they seriously think that is why we invaded; because they must think we should invade Darfur immediately.

Is there a certain answer you are looking for that you immediately rule out the one given? That infers that you know the answer. Do you have an answer in mind? If so, why did you bother asking?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where and how might Iran retaliate?



The US has thousands of service personnel on ships in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has thousands of anti-ship missiles within range of those ships.

Phalanx (et al) aren't that good. The maths would be pretty simple.

Casualties would be massive if Iran decided to make a large scale missile attack against US Naval assets... not to mention the trillions of dollars tied up in such large vessels.



Yeah and Aegis class frigates/cruisers won't see anything moving under their AO.
:S

Plus I bet the Iranians can see our subs?:S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said – Phalanx et al are not that good. That includes Aegis.

No one in their right mind actually expects Aegis to be able to intercept all incoming threats, especially not when were talking about the kind of anti-ship missiles Iran has – sea skimming Ruski ones doing Mac 2.5.

Modern Navies are highly vulnerable to missile attack, no matter advertising blurb you've read to the contrary.

It only takes 1 hit to take out 5 billion dollar nuclear carrier causing the loss hundreds if not thousands of lives as well as probably around 100 aircraft, costing how many hundred millions of dollars each? and with how many high tech ordinance costing how many dozens of millions of dollars each?

And they don't need to hit our subs to kill our guys - the surface ships will be quite enough cannon fodder.

I'm not in the slightest indicating that I think they'd win in the long run - just that they most certainly have the potential to give our combined naval forces in the area one hell of a blooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how often their target acquisition radars are on these days. I'd be surprised if the first time we saw their targeting radar is the first time they fire. I'd also bet we don't have standing orders to fire every time we see their radar switch to target mode.

Hell if we did there'd already be open war with China and Russia at the very least – such shenanigans have been commonplace in military standoffs since targeting radar was invented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm guessing the stated objective would be to "destroy any nuclear facilities"

we would be able to do that fairly easily. Either with a commando raid or heavy bombing missions.

of course, we would be heavily criticized by the world, and inspire more terrorists to attack us. I don't think it would be worth it.

MB 3528, RB 1182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm guessing the stated objective would be to "destroy any nuclear facilities"

we would be able to do that fairly easily. Either with a commando raid or heavy bombing missions.

of course, we would be heavily criticized by the world, and inspire more terrorists to attack us. I don't think it would be worth it.



I expect it would be as easy as finding the Iraqi WMD facilities and finding Osama bin Laden were.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the US would rather see Isreal and some of the more moderate states do its dirty work. Many middle eastern countries themselves are becoming alarmed at the growing regional power of Iran and themselves dont wish to see Iran develop a nuclear capability. So at a government/ " Regime " level in the middle east it would be acceptable to some countries . However the general population of those same states such as Suadi / Egypt wouldnt stomach it. While on one hand many Middle eastern governements might fear a " regime change " so would look to collaborate in some way ( as they are doing now with their " silence " ref Lebanon ) they would not risk civil unrest/ backlash and not do anything. Shia and Sunni would unite against the US. Its better for the US for Shia / Sunni to be killing each other as opposed to fighting the US together..

So who will attack Iran ?

Funnily enough Bush might have scored an own goal imposing a regime change ....sorry i do mean "democracy" in Iraq. Hes managed not only to increase the daily death tool in Iraq hugely but now has nobody but the Israelis to fight a proxy war.. (that and he has not knowing the region created a Sunni super middle east ) . Will Israel go after Iran , sponsor of Hezbolah ?? They might send a few cruise missiles into Iranian nuclear installations but i doubt they would get away with much more without a Sunni/ Shia backlash across the middle east. Then of course youd also be pissing of the chineese who might take a more proactive role in weapons supply like the russians in the 80s.. Putin is also the only guy talking to the Iranians,, would he support them .. hes winding the clock back re freedom of press / speech at home ,, would he help the Iranians with arms ??

The US would be very stupid to attack Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irans' leaders may be crazy but they're not stupid. I do not for one moment believe that they have organized their nuclear and other critical facilities in such a way that an Osiraq type attack could take them out. We'd prolly take out an aspirin factory by mistake.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0