Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Case for Invasion
swhitebull    1/20/2006 9:57:59 AM
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php swhitebull - Holsinger? Sounds familiar, doesnt he? Great Case made here.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Herodotus    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/20/2006 3:26:04 PM
He makes a good argument; I don't doubt that Iran is a threat, and need to be neutarlized. However aren't our military capabilities strained as it is? Iran is no Iraq; they have a stronger military, they actually have an air force, and Russia can supply them with weapons. Russia may not be able to overlook the fact that there are American troops on their border, and may not like that. "I also feel the occupation campaign in Iran will take much less time than the one in Iraq for the following reasons: "(1) Iran has a functioning civil society and democratic tradition while Iraq didn't. The mullahs veto candidates they don't like, more in the past few years than earlier, but the systems and mindset for a functioning democratic society are present." Yeah but the situation is just as volatile as Iraq, plus an insurgency will still most likely occur. I think every nation-state in the Middle East has as their back-up plan in case of invasion the formation of an insurgency, given the problems the US has encountered. Plus people don't like being invaded, even if they are on our side. "(2) We can use many of the Iranian army's junior officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel as a cadre for the new democratic regime's security forces. We couldn't do that with Iraq's army as the officers and non-coms were almost exclusively Sunni Arabs aka Baathist regime loyalists, and the mostly Shiite conscripts had almost all gone home." But these guys would have loyalty to the regime, plus fear of the Iranian Revoltionary Guard, once the latter triggers the insurgency. "3) Iran has at least one order of magnitude, and probably several orders of magnitude, less loose explosives than were present in Iraq, for possible use in improvised explosive devices. The mullah regime die-hards will die much faster than the Baathist die-hards in Iraq, because the ones in Iran will be attacking our forces mostly with direct-fire weapons. That is suicidal against American forces." Yeah but they have lots more forces to use those direct-fire weapons, ask Saddam. "4) Language and ethnicity differences mean that Al Qaeda's purely Sunni foreign terrorists won't be able to operate much in Iran. The latter operated only briefly in Shiite areas of Iraq - those that didn't leave quickly died horribly at Shiite hands. While there are a lot of Sunnis in Iran, few of those are Arabs - they're Kurds, Azeris, etc." No we won't face Al Qaeda terrorists, Hezbollah more likely, but the Kurds in Iran wil want to form their own break-away, whatever to unify with their brothers in Iraq. "My rough estimate of American casualties in the conquest and occupation campaigns for Iran, assuming that the mullahs don't nuke us, or use chemical weapons, is that we'd take about 50% more casualties in the first 18-24 months in Iran than in three years in Iraq, mostly in the twelve month period after the initial conquest" Sounds about right. "Everyone I know of with opinions on the subject agrees that the occupation campaign in Iran would be more intense than Iraq's, but Iraq's has seen only about 1700 KIA (or is it total fatalities including accidents?) during the 33 months of the occupation to date. That is about 50 fatalities per month for an average of about 120,000 troops (1 fatality per month per 2400 troops)." It's about six KIA per 1,000 troops, Iraq is smaller in population and land area than Iran, for every country that is Iraq's size or larger where an insurgency has occured, the insurgency has won. "And if we don't invade this year, it won't matter much after that. We'll be in the worst case scenario. And President Bush will be reviled as America’s worst President – the one who through inaction cost us our freedom." Well I don't see how it is feasible to A.) Sell the war to the American public, B.) Build up 250,000 troops, while leaving 120-130,000 troops in Iraq, 30,000 in Korea, and 50-60,000 in Europe, plus keeping two or three divisons in the strategic reserve...all in 8-9 months time. If Bush pulls it off though he could be the greatest president in history, and one of the great war leaders of all time.
 
Quote    Reply

Admiral Kirk    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/20/2006 6:22:19 PM
He makes a very good case, however, I am not sure the far left will buy it. I believe Iran is a great threat to the US. I think his regime change statement is a good one. I hope this can happen without a war. 30 days to regime change....bold statment. If anyone can do this, the US can. I wonder how long we would have to occupy Iran. If I am correct, this article indicates the war may go nuclear. I am not sure Russia or China would like that much. I also am not sure even if they did not like it, if they could do anything about it. Any thoughts? Peace Folks. Admiral Kirk
 
Quote    Reply

kane    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/20/2006 7:18:38 PM
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IRAN IS A GREAT THREAT TO U.S.A?? what the hell they can do to you from middle east? How the hell they can pass ocean and damgae U.S hahah think-Iranýan troops had taken control of Washýngton and New York Reýnforcements will soon land on south of U.S after they pass the ocean with the permission of Europeans-lolololololol can this happen The only thing they can do is to launch nukes if they have a range like that
 
Quote    Reply

Admiral Kirk    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/20/2006 7:48:14 PM
Well, what better way to damage a country than to do it economically. They are the 4th largest oil producer in the world. Today, they transferred all of their assets from Europe elsewhere. Stocks plummetted today. As far as being a threat, they are huge. The cannot invade the US, however, they are a terrorist sponsoring country. I am not sure what is so funny, but, perhaps you have a singular whit. The US does have a bunch of military and civilian assets over seas well within the Iranian striking cabaility. This is why. Admiral Kirk
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/20/2006 8:46:48 PM
...WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IRAN IS A GREAT THREAT TO U.S.A?? what the hell they can do to you from middle east? How the hell they can pass ocean and damgae U.S.... Call it payback for Beirut Marine barracks and Khobar Towers swhitebull - and , well, if they are harboring terrorisys like Hizbollah and Al Qaeda, we have A REASON FOR extinguishing the bastards
 
Quote    Reply

kane    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/21/2006 1:02:40 PM
what about assasianation or something like that.It seems stupid to invade a whole country for changing the leader..
 
Quote    Reply

Admiral Kirk    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/21/2006 1:09:50 PM
As you probably, that type of activity is against the law. That is why so many want to go the route of regime change. Admiral Kirk
 
Quote    Reply

Admiral Kirk    RE:The Case for Invasion    1/22/2006 6:38:40 PM
I do not want to see another war. I am not sure diplomatic means here will work either. I believe any deal that is cut with Iran will be breatched on the minute the agreement is signed. So it seems Iran will be referred to the security council. There is already talk that diplomatic means needs to be pursued. Russia and China are against any sanctions. Unless a pre-strike is done, Iran will have nuclear weapons now in a relavitely short period of time. Any thoughts on this? Admiral Kirk
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE:The Case for Invasion_Adm Kirk   1/23/2006 2:54:29 AM
1) Unless Iran is using previously tested designs gotten from the AQ Khan network in Pakistan they don't have a working design, or the one that the PRC used in the early 60's(and sold to Libya and Pakistan). 2) Even with a working design there's a question of fissile material. They haven't finished the centrifuge arrays yet, that seems to be their prefered way of getting uranium(and they seem to be going for a uranium using design), and so the most likely time frame for them to have enough material is about 3 years off(discussion at armscontrolwonk.com, but has also been covered in Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy magazines during the year---FP and FA also covered DPRK nucs). 3) Air strikes only set things back. Full removal of the regime is the most effective means of denial. 4) Even the Russian plan still leaves the chance that some is 'lost' and then reprocessed for a bomb(a little here, a little there, a decade later you've got yourself a score of warheads. Or just accept the Russian stuff, break all the agreements, and process it anyways.). 5) The US doesn't seem to have the divisions to go it alone, with the removal of the IRC route. It means we need a Combined Operation. Since China will scuttle it in the UNSC it's unlikely to come from there.
 
Quote    Reply

Finnish-Sissi    RE:The Case for Invasion_Adm Kirk   1/23/2006 5:15:47 AM
I think a guerilla warfare in Iran would be much worse then the one in Iraq. There are several reason to believe that. First of all the arms in the hands of Iranian isnsurgent will be a lot more lethal then the ones used by iraqis. Thye MANPADS in Iran are NOT obsolute like the ones Iraqis have. In Iraq it's mostly Sunnis who fight back. In Iran it would be a lot more.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics