Summer 2008 War on Iran/Syria/Hizballah

[Xavier_Onassis]

Israel is far more productive and and technologically advanced than it's Muslim neighbors and is particularly useful when it's killing terrorists by the truck load.

===========================================================
How about when it is killing innocent civilians by the even bigger truckload? They TRY ot to murder the little ones, but Jeez, it just can't be helped.

Not even the most annoying rightwing government in Europe kills children, for any reason, or troops off to go berserk on off on murderous raids.

Remember, we have Condi Rice, the diplomatic genius, to blame for Hamas winning control of Gaza. The same incompetent "National Security Adviser" who brought us from no foreign terrorism incidents at all to the present moment, where we get our shampoo and nail clippers confiscated.

The thing is that Israel always claims it has a special pass to grab land and build colonies (ie settlements) , chop down centuries old olive groves belonging to Arabs, and such. God gave it these rights. It deserves these rights because it it so modern.

Jordan and Syria claim no such extra privileges. Neither does any other country, because they would be laughed off the stage of any act in town. The last country to claim crap like this, superiority by divine racial mandate, was Botha's South Africa, the one that had the magical ingredient, apartheid. Just like Israel. Zionism is the right for Jews to live in Israel, grab Palestinian land, and treat every non-Jew pretty much the way that they were treated in Europe--poorly, but with God's special blessing.

[_JS]

destroying an enemy is the answer
they dont rebuild anything unless told if they are destroyed
we have the capability of destroying Iran from the air
we can destroy their infrastructure from the air
as soon as they rebuild, if needed we would redestroy if they were "uncooperative"
we can "stair step" it
and give them the opportunity to say "I give"
but because "they'll get mad"
is not enough reason to not destroy the enemy
we set the rules not them
the rules aren't
if you dont bomb us we build nukes, if you bomb us we get really angry and rebuild
no we dont accept those "JS rules" and will destroy you if you continue to be uncooperative and spread terror
luckily General Sherman was not ruled by JS logic
"The South will get really mad if we burn and destroy Atlanta and destroy them"
baloney
the enemies we completely destroyed faired better than the ones we wussed out before finishing
The Confederacy, Japan & Germany were destroyed
Today they are wealthy models of modern life

1. Learn history:

General Sherman would also have a quote for you. He wasn't very fond of armchair warriors.

"We" did not completely destroy Germany or Japan. In fact, we placed former Nazis into key positions due to our fear of the Soviets, who followed Sherman's precept far more than the United States. In general, Germans weren't afraid of the United States - it was the Red Army that scared them.

Atlanta was not destroyed. That is an historical myth. About 30% of it was burned, it was primarily the industry and storehouses and that cut to the heart of Southern productivity.

2. It is not "JS rules" it is reality. We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules, not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country. Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that. Iraq is a training exercise compared to Iran. The terrain is far more difficult and the military more experienced in guerilla warfare (they taught the Hezbollah fighters).

3. We aren't a powerful Empire, no matter how much you and others think we can lay down law and dictate terms to any nation we damn well please. The truth is that we are not that strong. If you want an Empire then I suggest you start rallying for one. Otherwise you need to join the real world where diplomacy takes place and the ramifications of war are profound. You're still thinking short-term, and again that is the reason we're in the current crap we're in. If we give the Iranian people a chance they will retake their government from the hardliners. If you bomb them, the militants will become all the more popular.

Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.

=================================
Before Juniorbush, we could count on our leaders being smarter than guys like LessChristians. He claims to be for less government, but war always makes governments bigger: more military, more expenses, more lobbyists craving weapons money, more veterans to patch up, bury and keep relatively happy.

But Juniorbush proven that the president is not necessarily as smart as your average Weimariner.

[Christians4LessGvt]

1. Learn history:

Yeah sure.

General Sherman would also have a quote for you. He wasn't very fond of armchair warriors.

JS in a political policy disscussion it is really such a distraction
and waste of time to make the discusssion of public policy merits a personal one.
We are discusssing public policy not our personal lives. It would be like if
we were discusssing free health care for the poor and the person against it
kept saying to Nancy Pelosi "well Ms. Pelosi I dont think we should enact
this policy because you personally have not spent time administering health
care to the needy". Whether Pelosi has personally administered healthcare
has no real relevance as to whether it is good policy any more than discussing
military foriegn policy as being of greater or lesser value because I personally
am flying the B1 bomber.

"We" did not completely destroy Germany or Japan.
 
Come on JS quit playing worthless semantic games.
I thought we had an understanding about that?
My point is my point and whether we or we with help of allies "destroyed"
or "completely destroyed" Germany/Japan doesn't change the point.


In fact, we placed former Nazis into key positions due to our fear of the Soviets, who followed Sherman's precept far more than the United States. In general, Germans weren't afraid of the United States - it was the Red Army that scared them. Atlanta was not destroyed. That is an historical myth. About 30% of it was burned, it was primarily the industry and storehouses and that cut to the heart of Southern productivity.

More dribble non-sense distraction crap talk that has nothing to do with my point.
Such a waste of time.
Orally it would be ok, because you could dismiss it so easily,
but so time consuming to type.
Can we not accept even the most basic obvious so to move the discussion
as long as something does not alter the underlying major point?
The North "destroyed" the Confederacy.
Of course "destroyed" is a relative term.
When I wrecked my car, I told someone it was "destroyed".
Of course they could have pulled a "JS" and said "but was it completely destroyed?"
"You cant say the car is "destroyed" if the cigarette lighter and radio still works!"  
Such a waste of time defining the obvious.

When we destroy Iran from air I would not object to placing behaving Iranians in key positions.
I dont care if the Germans "feared us" or the Iranians "fear us".
This isn't about ego or fear.
It's about forcing behavior change, just like it was with the Confederacy, Japan, and Germany.
We have the power to do that and I think we should.

The bottom line to this entire discussion between you and I is
You think the cost is too high, I think the cost of waiting is higher.

You seem to want to imply I am dumb or someone that is not serious,
armchair warrior, takes war lightly, ect. It's an insult, but not unexpected.
You and your ilk have trouble accepting that someone honestly comes to
a different conclusion after looking at a situation. It can't be an intelligent
conclusion, it must be "armchair" "dont know history" or "I hope they are
smarter than you (implying dumbness). Look at my bottomline statement
above, I just accept you have a different conclusion, but I dont
question your sincerity, IQ, maturity, or manhood. JS you are actually
better than the tactics you use.

2. It is not "JS rules" it is reality.

No it is not reality at all.
You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way.
We either must accept Iran Nukes/Iran Meddling or catch hell for attacking them.
The US doesn't have to play by those rules. Why? Because we dont have to. Thats reality.
I do not accept those rules for our country and would play by my different rules.

We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules,
not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country.

100% wrong.
We dont want or need to occupy Iran.
Any more than we wanted or need to occupy Yugoslavia.
We just want changed bahavior.

Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that.

I know for a fact we can. See below. It's not complicated.
I know I know you'll have no answer to the military strategy and will cling to the
"what would the world think"?
Thats funny because you are among the bunch that already says the world doesnt like us,
but I guess you'll be so desperate you'll just say "well they wont like us more". Cry me a river!

Rough outline:

Give diplomacy one last chance.
Inform Iran the rules have changed and there will be no more tolerance for their behavior and meddling.
Zero tolerance for arming Iraqi terrorist/militias that kill American troops
Zero tolerance for building nukes.
Zero tolerance for sending arms/support/training to Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas/and others
Give them a deadline. 3 months, 6 months, whatever.

To start tell Iran that "X behavior must stop"
It doesnt even have to be everything at first
Just give them one item like "no more support for Hezbollah"
if they do not change the behaviour after repeated warnings and the deadline
then finally and reluctantly an air bombing and cruise missle campaign would target an Iranian military base.

Iran at any point would have the power to "call off the dogs" and
stop the bombing with an agreement to drastically change the behaviour.
The behaviour change wouldn't be the end of the world.
It wouldnt be like we would take them over.
They would become a trade partner and accepted nation of good will.
We dont want them or anything they have.
We want behaviour change.

After the first bombing of a military base
Then start over, same process.
Give them a deadline and opportunity to change.
If they do not, target the next Iranian military base.

Then give diplomacy a chance again.
Start process again.
Give deadline, and opportunity to change.
If Iran does not respond bomb the next Iranian military facility.

Over the course of time if they do not respond to the measured requests
slowly all of their military bases, airfields, naval ships, military facilities would
be destroyed from the air.

With a military in chaos and all military infrastructure being destroyed the
Iranians would have much less time and money to meddle in foriegn affairs
and be consumed internally with a government regime trying to survive while
the military that protects the regime's survival is being destroyed from the air.

This type carrot and stick air campaign could go on as long as needed.
After destroying all military bases and infrastructure, you could move on to
ships, ports, nuclear facilities, weapons factories, and see if the regime
is ready to behave. If not just continue on to other high value targets.

If they try to rebuild the destroyed facilities just send in more stealth bombers
and do it all over again. They will soon realize their situation is hopeless.
They cant place an effective entire military underground.
They will be in survival mode not offensive mode any more.

Iraq is a training exercise compared to Iran.

Not any where near the same goals or tactics.
As different as A-Z.
See above.

The terrain is far more difficult and the military more experienced in guerilla warfare (they taught the Hezbollah fighters).

See above.
Terrain means basically nothing in an air destruction war.
Guerilla warfare would have ZERO VALUE.
ZERO!
Again you are trying to set the rules of a game that favors the enemy.
I do not and would not accept those rules.

3. We aren't a powerful Empire, no matter how much you and others think we can lay down law and dictate terms to any nation we damn well please. The truth is that we are not that strong.

I agree we and no one else ever is powerful enough to occupy every country.
But we dont need or want to do that.
We dont want to run Iran, we dont run Germany, we dont run Japan
we want changed behaviour.
We are strong enough to get the behviour changed.
See above.
There is no reason we can not carry out the destruction from the air policy to change behaviour.


If you want an Empire then I suggest you start rallying for one.

I dont want an empire, I dont want anything Iran has.
Like that dump has anything we want? Oil. We dont need their oil.
Those morons can hardly even refine their own oil.
They need help building almost everything.
"Oh can you build us a nuclear facility, we're too dumb to do it ourselves"

All I want is for Iran to behave.
And believe me they would if I were in charge.
Very very quickly they would behave.

Otherwise you need to join the real world where diplomacy takes place and the ramifications of war are profound.

Oh quit your condescending preaching pretending I dont realize the ramifications of war, as if you do and I dont. I have already in this very post quoted Sherman's feeling about War being "HELL". Do you understand
"HELL"? Those are my feelings exactly. War is HELL. War is horrible. So is getting a leg amputated, but sometimes
as a last resort it is necessary.

You're still thinking short-term,

No I am thinking very long term.

and again that is the reason we're in the current crap we're in.

No, pandering is the reason we are in the current crap.
We brought Milosevic to his knees from the air and need to the same to Syria and Iran.
It's going to happen.


If we give the Iranian people a chance they will retake their government from the hardliners.

JS I wish that would happen.
It's really too bad the students in Iran can't overcome the MullahNazis.
maybe we coulda waited out Hitler being overthrowwn too. NOT
We cant keep hoping while they nuclear arm and will supply the Islamist too.
Sure it would be preferable if the IslamoNazis were overthrown.
But at some point it must be dealt with and not just keep "hoping it will go away".

If you bomb them, the militants will become all the more popular.

General Sherman if you burn Atlanta it's gonna make them even madder!

Hopefully our leaders are smarter than you.

More personal shots?
Yeah letting the the Iranians get nukes is real smart.
You wouldnt have bombed the Syrian nuke factory.
Is that smart?
Yeah talk talk talk talk
Oh please Syria dont build nukes.
Oh please Syria/Iran dont pass nukes to Hezbollah and Hamas.
Oh boo whoo please, we can destroy you but wont, so we beg
 

[Rich]

>>How about when it is killing innocent civilians by the even bigger truckload?<<

Get a bigger truck?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Hamas serving as Iran's "proxy warriors," Rice says

Agence France-Presse - 4/30/2008 4:55 AM GMT



Palestinian Hamas militants are serving as the "proxy warriors" for an Iran bent on destroying Israel and destabilizing the Middle East, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said here.

In a speech Tuesday to the American Jewish Committee in Washington that underscored growing US concerns about Tehran, Rice mentioned Iran as not just a threat in the Palestinian territories, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and even in Afghanistan.

Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said after talks with Rice on Monday that an Iran-led radical front in the Middle East is becoming more powerful and weaknesses in it need to be found.

Rice vowed to pursue US efforts to isolate Hamas which she said refused to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and respect all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel.

"But perhaps of deepest concern, the leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability and proclaiming its desire to destroy Israel," Rice told the group's annual meeting.

She did not elaborate.

Iran is one of the most vocal backers of the Islamic Resistance Movement and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to help a Hamas government through a funding drought caused by Western aid cuts.

But Tehran has always insisted its support for Palestinian militant groups is moral in nature and does not extend to arming or training fighters.

Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip in June last year after ousting forces loyal to Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah faction, which remains in power in the West Bank.

Fatah and Hamas had served in a national unity government after Hamas won elections in 2006.

The United States backs the Palestinian Authority in new peace negotiations with Israel that were launched last November, and denounces Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Rice called for international support for the Palestinian Authority, which she said had "the will to fight terrorism" and "the desire to govern effectively" but did not yet have the means.

She echoed remarks by President George W. Bush who said Tuesday he was still hopeful of a Middle East peace deal before he left office in January but warned that Hamas could "undermine" the effort.

Rice also vowed that Washington would continue to tighten controls on Iran's alleged misuse of the international financial system for terrorism and weapons proliferation.

The US Treasury last October slapped sanctions on Iran's elite Quds Force, accused by the US of being a supporter of terrorism, as well as the country's Revolutionary Guards, said to be a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

"We made designations for instance of the Quds Force, we made designations of the Revolutionary Guard," Rice recalled. "You can believe that we're going to continue to make designations."

In her speech, Rice spoke of a new "belt of extremism" that ranges from Hamas, to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah in Lebanon to radicals in Iraq and "radicals even increasingly in places like Afghanistan."

It is "supported overwhelmingly by Iran and to a certain extent Syria, but particularly Iran, gives this conflict a regional dimension it has not had before," Rice said.

Critics say the US-led invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab, has emboldened non-Arab Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies throughout the region.

http://news.my.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1365599

[_JS]

JS in a political policy disscussion it is really such a distraction
and waste of time to make the discusssion of public policy merits a personal one.
We are discusssing public policy not our personal lives. It would be like if
we were discusssing free health care for the poor and the person against it
kept saying to Nancy Pelosi "well Ms. Pelosi I dont think we should enact
this policy because you personally have not spent time administering health
care to the needy". Whether Pelosi has personally administered healthcare
has no real relevance as to whether it is good policy any more than discussing
military foriegn policy as being of greater or lesser value because I personally
am flying the B1 bomber.

Blah, blah, blah. You brough General Sherman into this conversation my friend, not me. I'm just telling you what he'd think of someone like you pandering for war. He made some of his harshest remarks for those who did exactly that. Don't jump on me and get defensive if you dislike it. I am just telling you what Sherman thought of those who talked up warfare and you'd be a prime example as with the posts I've read from you on this board.

Come on JS quit playing worthless semantic games.
I thought we had an understanding about that?
My point is my point and whether we or we with help of allies "destroyed"
or "completely destroyed" Germany/Japan doesn't change the point.

It goes far beyond semantics to history itself. That very thing you sarcastically poked fun at above. You are comparing a war with Iran to World War II with Germany and Japan. Yet, in reality and in your own words it would be nothing like World War II in either theater.

More dribble non-sense distraction crap talk that has nothing to do with my point.
Such a waste of time.
Orally it would be ok, because you could dismiss it so easily,
but so time consuming to type.
Can we not accept even the most basic obvious so to move the discussion
as long as something does not alter the underlying major point?
The North "destroyed" the Confederacy.
Of course "destroyed" is a relative term.
When I wrecked my car, I told someone it was "destroyed".
Of course they could have pulled a "JS" and said "but was it completely destroyed?"
"You cant say the car is "destroyed" if the cigarette lighter and radio still works!"  
Such a waste of time defining the obvious.

When we destroy Iran from air I would not object to placing behaving Iranians in key positions.
I dont care if the Germans "feared us" or the Iranians "fear us".
This isn't about ego or fear.
It's about forcing behavior change, just like it was with the Confederacy, Japan, and Germany.
We have the power to do that and I think we should.

The bottom line to this entire discussion between you and I is
You think the cost is too high, I think the cost of waiting is higher.

You seem to want to imply I am dumb or someone that is not serious,
armchair warrior, takes war lightly, ect. It's an insult, but not unexpected.
You and your ilk have trouble accepting that someone honestly comes to
a different conclusion after looking at a situation. It can't be an intelligent
conclusion, it must be "armchair" "dont know history" or "I hope they are
smarter than you (implying dumbness). Look at my bottomline statement
above, I just accept you have a different conclusion, but I dont
question your sincerity, IQ, maturity, or manhood. JS you are actually
better than the tactics you use.

On the contrary, you make several insults throughout this and your previous post. 

No it is not reality at all.
You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way.
We either must accept Iran Nukes/Iran Meddling or catch hell for attacking them.
The US doesn't have to play by those rules. Why? Because we dont have to. Thats reality.
I do not accept those rules for our country and would play by my different rules.

We don't live in a childish world of "destroying Iran through the air" and "we set the rules,
not them." The only way that we set the rules is for us to occupy their country.

100% wrong.
We dont want or need to occupy Iran.
Any more than we wanted or need to occupy Yugoslavia.
We just want changed bahavior.

This is probably the most interesting statement you make and certainly the most telling. You like to set up the dynamic where the "US loses" either way. That one sentence betrays your thinking right away into exactly what I'd said. And behold, in the very next sentence you explain it in the very terms that are the precise problem.

Do you see it?

False dichotomy. You limit the situation with Iran to only two possible paths. One is complete capitulation and the other is "complete destruction." A or B, black or white. My point is not to attack you personally, as I have no idea who you are. My point is that it is childish (or sophomoric if you prefer a less harsh term) to place US Foreign Affairs into binary language. Surely you can think of other possibilities? With people like Condi Rice, an eminent scholar, surely we aren't limited to two choices and nothing more. I refuse to believe that.

I know for a fact we can. See below. It's not complicated.
I know I know you'll have no answer to the military strategy and will cling to the
"what would the world think"?
Thats funny because you are among the bunch that already says the world doesnt like us,
but I guess you'll be so desperate you'll just say "well they wont like us more". Cry me a river!

Wow. You've already come up with a scripted answer for me. How kind. Why do I bother thinking of a post for myself?

Terrain means basically nothing in an air destruction war.

LOL

Guerilla warfare would have ZERO VALUE.
ZERO!

LOL

Again you are trying to set the rules of a game that favors the enemy.
I do not and would not accept those rules.

I don't "favor" anyone. I don't consider the people of Iran to be my enemy. If anything I favor the working people of Iran and the United States who should not have to die in anyone's pointless battle. What I am telling you is that there are likely to be solutions that don't require military force.

I agree we and no one else ever is powerful enough to occupy every country.
But we dont need or want to do that.
We dont want to run Iran, we dont run Germany, we dont run Japan
we want changed behaviour.
We are strong enough to get the behviour changed.
See above.
There is no reason we can not carry out the destruction from the air policy to change behaviour.

Of course we did run Germany and Japan. If you don't want to learn the history then quit bringing them up as parallels. We even tried to run Iraq. Who are we to dictate behavior to Iran? Why should they listen to us?

I dont want an empire, I dont want anything Iran has.
Like that dump has anything we want? Oil. We dont need their oil.
Those morons can hardly even refine their own oil.
They need help building almost everything.
"Oh can you build us a nuclear facility, we're too dumb to do it ourselves"

All I want is for Iran to behave.
And believe me they would if I were in charge.
Very very quickly they would behave.

What morons are you speaking of? Do you find the people of Iran to be less intelligent than Americans?

Oh quit your condescending preaching pretending I dont realize the ramifications of war, as if you do and I dont. I have already in this very post quoted Sherman's feeling about War being "HELL". Do you understand
"HELL"? Those are my feelings exactly. War is HELL. War is horrible. So is getting a leg amputated, but sometimes
as a last resort it is necessary.

You don't seem to be bothered enough to even think twice about using violence as a quick solution. ChristiansUnited indeed.

No, pandering is the reason we are in the current crap.

Ah, it won't be long until Neville Chamberlain is mentioned. Action, Action, Action!!!

JS I wish that would happen.
It's really too bad the students in Iran can't overcome the MullahNazis.
maybe we coulda waited out Hitler being overthrowwn too. NOT
We cant keep hoping while they nuclear arm and will supply the Islamist too.
Sure it would be preferable if the IslamoNazis were overthrown.
But at some point it must be dealt with and not just keep "hoping it will go away".

Calling them "MullahNazis" is unlikely too help. Ah, there's the Hitler reference...nice. Of course, Iran is nothing like Nazi Germany, but don't let that stop you. Notice that I never suggested "hoping it will go away." I'm simply saying that war is not the answer. Militarism was one of Hitler's greatest tools. The notion that violence can be used for good was a very popular idea with the Nazis and Hitler, himself.

General Sherman if you burn Atlanta it's gonna make them even madder!

Again, no historical context. Sherman was in a war and purposefully wanted Southern civilians to taste the effects of the Civil War. It was a demoralising campaign. The South had no military left in Georgia to combat him (they sent old men and young kids to fight him). Sherman had an overwhelming force that terrified the locals. Air war has never been proven succesful at accomplishing the same task. There were numerous atrocities even after the NATO forces went into Bosnia and Kosovo for peacekeeping. The air war did nothing to prevent them. We can start discussing those if you like.

More personal shots?
Yeah letting the the Iranians get nukes is real smart.
You wouldnt have bombed the Syrian nuke factory.
Is that smart?
Yeah talk talk talk talk
Oh please Syria dont build nukes.
Oh please Syria/Iran dont pass nukes to Hezbollah and Hamas.
Oh boo whoo please, we can destroy you but wont, so we beg
 

Ah, the recourse of the warmonger. Those who are against war must either be unpatriotic or pansies.

Listen, I'm plenty comfortable with who I am and my bollocks are plenty large enough that I don't need a two-seater sports car for an extension, let alone the little display above won't cause me any shame. It is easy to sit back in bourgeoisie comforts and monger war. As Iraq has shown, it is a hell of a lot tougher to fight the damned things.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Air war has never been proven succesful at accomplishing the same task.

Yes in Kosevo it worked perfectly.
It brought Milo to his knees.
It brought an outlaw regime to it's knees with very very very few lost American lives.
Regime change happened.
Behavior changed without alot of ground troops.
It basically happpened from the air.
Thats all I want in Iran.
I dont want Iran.
I want behavior change.

You saying earlier "Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that"
is clearly just wrong. There is no doubt that for all practical purpose the United States can
destroy the Iranian military from the air. We can carpet bomb their airfields, their bases,
sink their ships, destroy their ports, and if needed use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy
underground facilities.

I know you cant stand it, but we can dictate to Iran because we can.
And we can do it without much loss of American life.
We have the power.
Now I admit we may not have the will because of the Left, but we do have the power.
I know it drives you crazy to know we have the power and can do it from the air.
You would love for there to be a bigger cost so your way would be the only way.
But thats not reality.
Soon we will confront the Mullahs, that you wanna "hope" are overthrown.


There were numerous atrocities even after the NATO forces went into Bosnia and Kosovo for peacekeeping.

Not sure of your point.
There is always some cost to war, even a successful Clinton air war in Kosevo/Yugo
But to say " we dont have the capabilty to do it" is plainly wrong.
First you say "we cant do it"
Now it's "well there could be some atrocities afterwards".
Wow talk about a U-turn in logic, changing the bar.

The air war did nothing to prevent them. We can start discussing those if you like.

What does that have to do with my premise?
I said we can do it.
I dont say no lives would be lost
It would be crazy to imply we will destroy the Iranian military from the air and no problems would exist on the ground afterward.
But we wouldn't be there on the ground
we wouldn't be there peace-keeping
that would not be our goal
and Iran could "call off the dogs" at any moment they choose
our goal is changing Iran's behaviour
and keeping Iran busy at home with a plate of problems to deal with
too busy to meddle in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and many other places
when your own house is burning down, helping someone else becomes alot less important

[Christians4LessGvt]

It goes far beyond semantics to history itself. That very thing you sarcastically poked fun at above.
You are comparing a war with Iran to World War II with Germany and Japan. Yet, in reality and in
your own words it would be nothing like World War II in either theater.

Come on JS. It is semantics in the context I am using it.
Yes I am comparing a war with Iran with WWII, but only in certain aspects.
No it would not be like WWII in many aspects, naval, ground invasions, ect
But IMO it would be like WWII as far as destroying an enemy to force behavior change with a great result

[Christians4LessGvt]

False dichotomy.

Like I said, not in my opinion.
I think we have reached that point with Iran.

You limit the situation with Iran to only two possible paths. One is complete capitulation and the other is "complete destruction." A or B, black or white. My point is not to attack you personally, as I have no idea who you are. My point is that it is childish (or sophomoric if you prefer a less harsh term) to place US Foreign Affairs into binary language. Surely you can think of other possibilities? With people like Condi Rice, an eminent scholar, surely we aren't limited to two choices and nothing more. I refuse to believe that.

You refuse to believe that? Ok
I have provided my solution.

What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from having nukes
and then putting them on rockets that can hit NY?

"Hope" that they wont?
I dont wanna rely on "hope".

I wanna rely on "it can not happen because they dont have the power to do it"

Talk, talk, talk, talk? Thats not working thus far. So what secret do you have?
Specifically whats your plan? I laid mine out.

What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from passing nukes to terror groups
that might strike the US from the dark where we might not know who hit us?

[Christians4LessGvt]

You don't seem to be bothered enough to even think twice about using violence as a quick solution.

Quick?
come on JS be honest
i know thats the typical response, imply i am a quick draw love war rightwinger
but you can't just invent stuff from thin air
did you not read my plan?
i stated we ask Iran to change
we give them plenty of time
i said warn them
"give them 3 months, 6 months, whatever"
the ball would be in their court
we start with just one request not the whole enchilada
it's not like they would be agreeing to a "take-over"
just an adjustment in behaviour
we wouldn't plunder their resources
they can keep their resources
they can keep their culture
we dont want to conquer Iran
we dont want Iran
just give up their quest for nukes and helping terrorist
my plan is anything but "quick on violence"
my plan is stairstepped to give them every opportunity to change just a couple of things

[Christians4LessGvt]

"What morons are you speaking of? Do you find the people of Iran to be less intelligent than Americans?"

The morons are the people that are keeping the Iranian people from reaching their potential.

Americans are no smarter than any other people.

I think certain cultures have unique characteristics.

I think the American culture could be one of the best at innovation.

I think the Japanese culture isn't as good at innovation but may be better at building a better wheel.

But are Americans "smarter". No, I think not.

The difference is Americans are more free to reach for their dreams.

Thats why more people immigrate to the United States than any other nation on earth.

They know they have a better chance to reach their potential here.

Its a tragedy that people all over the globe are basically held in failed control freak systems
that produce miserable results.

No, I think with freedom, people from all over the globe would show they can have great success
once set free, just like the Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, and others have done.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"What I am telling you is that there are likely to be solutions that don't require military force"

Please do tell me?
Enlighten the many that have tried and failed.
Expose your exact plan, I have explained mine.

[_JS]

Yes in Kosevo it worked perfectly.
It brought Milo to his knees.
It brought an outlaw regime to it's knees with very very very few lost American lives.
Regime change happened.
Behavior changed without alot of ground troops.
It basically happpened from the air.
Thats all I want in Iran.
I dont want Iran.
I want behavior change.

It worked in Kosovo or Bosnia? Then why were there massacres AFTER the war? AFTER "Milo" stepped down? I suggest you look into it before prematurely declaring success. Milosevic was not an "outlaw" regime. He was elected and popularly so.

You saying earlier "Iran knows for a fact that we cannot possibly accomplish that"
is clearly just wrong. There is no doubt that for all practical purpose the United States can
destroy the Iranian military from the air. We can carpet bomb their airfields, their bases,
sink their ships, destroy their ports, and if needed use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy
underground facilities.

We will not use nuclear weapons on Iran, tactical or otherwise. We like to throw that around to scare folks, but it won't happen. You've fallen in love with the Air Force lie. A lot of people have. It doesn't change the fact that if you bomb Iran, especially as much as you're talking about here, you've made numerous enemies for decades. All of those military structures can be rebuilt. The rift you'll have created between Shi'a Islam and America will not be so easily repaired. Lest you forget, we're still in a war in Iraq where 3/5 of the population is Shi'a Islam.

I know you cant stand it, but we can dictate to Iran because we can.
And we can do it without much loss of American life.
We have the power.
Now I admit we may not have the will because of the Left, but we do have the power.
I know it drives you crazy to know we have the power and can do it from the air.
You would love for there to be a bigger cost so your way would be the only way.
But thats not reality.
Soon we will confront the Mullahs, that you wanna "hope" are overthrown.

Do not tell me what I want or do not want like a petulent child.

The days of the US "dictating because we can" have come and gone with the Cold War. As I said earlier, if you wish to dictate through military might then you need to support an explicit Empire. Why? Because you're going to need a lot more soldiers and a lot larger military budget. You also need to convince Americans that Imperial ambitions are necessary. Iran is not Grenada.

What does that have to do with my premise?
I said we can do it.
I dont say no lives would be lost
It would be crazy to imply we will destroy the Iranian military from the air and no problems would exist on the ground afterward.
But we wouldn't be there on the ground
we wouldn't be there peace-keeping
that would not be our goal
and Iran could "call off the dogs" at any moment they choose
our goal is changing Iran's behaviour
and keeping Iran busy at home with a plate of problems to deal with
too busy to meddle in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and many other places
when your own house is burning down, helping someone else becomes alot less important

It was an objective of the war with Serbia. You're beginning to make me wonder if this conversation is worth having if you keep using historical parallels and then question them after the fact.

You refuse to believe that? Ok
I have provided my solution.

What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from having nukes
and then putting them on rockets that can hit NY?

"Hope" that they wont?
I dont wanna rely on "hope".

I wanna rely on "it can not happen because they dont have the power to do it"

Talk, talk, talk, talk? Thats not working thus far. So what secret do you have?
Specifically whats your plan? I laid mine out.

What are your other great "choices" to prevent Iran from passing nukes to terror groups
that might strike the US from the dark where we might not know who hit us?

I have never said "hope" in this entire conversation, yet YOU keep bringing it up.

What other choices are there? To accomplish what exactly? You've laid out a plan to bomb Iran into the stone age, but haven't said anything about objectives other than Iran hasn't been "behaving" up to your standards.

What precise criteria does Iran have to meet before you decide to act violently towards her people?

[_JS]

Its a tragedy that people all over the globe are basically held in failed control freak systems
that produce miserable results.

No, I think with freedom, people from all over the globe would show they can have great success
once set free, just like the Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, and others have done.

Why does it take freedom? What proof have you of this?

The Germans were among the most innovative people on this planet before WW2 and they had never had a democratic government. South Koreans were not "free" until the 1990's. The Chinese produce innovations under a very harsh government. Soviet chemists were among the world's best. What makes you certain there is a link between freedom and innovation?