Iran is going to do us in

[The_Professor]

Do you doubt that, militarily speaking, we would rout them in the initial attack?

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you doubt that, militarily speaking, we would rout them in the initial attack?>>

Yes, I do.  It depends on where you made the initial attack.  Keep in mind, parts of the country are mountainous.  Mussolini thought he'd rout the Greeks on his first attack from Albania.  His armies were thrown back twice, despite their superiority in training and equipment, and he finally had to call in the Germans.  An Iranian defence force would be tough, smart, motivated and unafraid to die in the defence of their country.  Besides which, as we've already seen, the initial attack is not the whole story.

I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government.  They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself.  So I'd love to see a war between the two of them - - it's a win-win proposition.  No matter which side comes out on top a whole bunch of real bad people are going to wind up dead.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The ass-kicking you are now receiving in Iraq will be as nothing compared to
the ass-kicking you will receive from the combined efforts of the Iraqi and the
Iranian peoples.

What a laugh.
We wouldn't invade Iran.
The United States could destroy Iran by air.
Not a single ground troop would be needed. (oh maybe some Seal/Green Beret/Ranger recons with laser pointers would be helpful)
Now will we do it?
I doubt it.
But we would if I was in charge.
Actually it would be rather easy.

First destroy from the air Iranian military airfields.
Stops any transports of troops and arms within Iran and shipments to other terrorist via air.
Done very easily.

Then ask "enough"?

Next destroy from the air Iranian military ports.
Then ask "enough"?
Stop or greatly hamper shipments of arms/troops via seaports.

Then destroy by air Iranian rail roads
Stop transport of military hardware/troops/supplies via railroad.
Then ask "enough"?

Next destroy by air major industrial facilities.
Then ask "enough"?

By asking "enough?" the Iranians would to some degree control their destiny.
Answer yes, destruction stops, answer no, destruction continues.

You do not defeat enemies bent on "Death To America", enemies that want to destroy you and Israel by being nice.
The only way to destroy this type of enemy is to destroy them.
And we have the power to do it.
And I believe we should do it before they gain more power and will be harder to destroy.

When the answer to "enough?" is "yes", then agreements are made.
If the answer is "no".

Then begin bombing additional industrial facilities including all harbors/oil facilities/manufactoring plants.
Ask again "enough"?

If the answer is "yes", then agreements are made.
Agreements that have no wiggle room.
Agreements that take Iran in a completely different direction.
Agreements like not a single dollar or arms to Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbullah ever again.
Agreements like no more military offensive capability.
Agreements like no more arm shipments anywhere.
Agreements like no more money to support terror groups or foriegn militaries.
Agreements like immediate halt to all nuclear ambitions.

Japan lives by most of the above and they have a nice quality of life.
So will Iran one day.
It is just a matter of time when we have to deal with them.

[Michael Tee]

I gotta admit, you fight a great war on paper, Professor.  Probably that's why you're a Professor and not a General.

But back to the real world:  it did not work in Viet Nam.  It would not work in Iran.  Even though you have one big advantage that you didn't have in Viet Nam, in that it's no longer a bipolar world.

I believe you made a serious mistake in treating this as involving only Iran and the U.S.A. and ignoring the fact that the world is way too small for this to be regarded in isolation from the U.S. relationship to the rest of the world.  Or Iran's relationship to the rest of the world.

I don't think you appreciate how many people hate the United States and how much energy it takes to keep those people suppressed - - in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Jordan, in Turkey.  These people are fed a steady diet of front-page and prime-time news of various horrific acts of violence against Muslims by Israelis (who it is believed could be squashed like bugs if not for U.S. financial and military support) and by U.S. forces and by forces of governments regarded as U.S. puppets.  It's like a pot that's already boiling and the heat is being steadily turned up regardless.  This thing is going to reach a point where one provocation too many will set off a chain reaction of local uprisings that no amount of puppet-army force will be able to hold down.  It's happened before.

The bottom line is that the U.S. can't treat Iran as if it existed in a vacuum.  It doesn't.  Anything the U.S. does to Iran has repercussions in the wider Muslim world.  Beyond the wider Muslim world, it has repercussions everywhere - - in India, in Europe, in Russia, in China.  These countries also have interests, in the Middle East and elsewhere.  They may wish to establish their own relationships with certain Middle East countries, favouring one over the other as suits their advantage from time to time.  How is it in their interest to find out that all the countries that they wish to do business with are controlled by the U.S. through terror and violence and intimidation?  Do they really want to see the U.S. get away with bludgeoning Iran into subservience, after Iraq and after Afghanistan? 

Just as the European nations believed, from the Congress of Vienna till 1939, that a balance of power had to exist on the Continent, the nations that deal in the Middle East and buy its oil do not want to see any one nation gain predominance of position over the Region.  They prefer to deal with a range of independent suppliers, rather than a closed system with every shop on the street owned by Uncle Sam.  In fact it's very much in their interest that Uncle Sam NOT monopolize the street.  What you are advocating would be a direct threat to the national interests of Russia, China, the EU, India and possibly Japan and South Korea.  Now the U.S. could obviously piece off some of them, but it couldn't piece off all of them, otherwise it'd be back where it started from.  So the question is, where would this "Mad Dog" act land the U.S.?  IMHO, it would at the very least be an isolating event.  I don't want to go through all of the stages, step by step, but the end result could very well be similar to the end result of all of Hitler's aggressions - - a world united against him, the strangest of bedfellows forced into unnatural and unforeseen alliances by the perceived out-of-control violence and arrogance of one powerful state that others now see as a serious threat to themselves and/or to the peace of the world.

[Christians4LessGvt]

yeah sure, with iran laying in ashes everyone will suddenly get brave
now thats funny

[Michael Tee]

That's how it works, Professor.  People got brave when Russia was in ashes.  400 miles deep, and burned to the ground.  Millions dead.  And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.

What's the other side of the story?  Japan gave up after being nuked only twice.  Makes sense.  They didn't have any allies.  They didn't have any nukes.  The game was over.

Today a lot of people have nukes.  Russia.  China.  India.  Pakistan.  And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked.  But they will start to think, "Who's next?"  The logic of the situation would be inexorable.  Churchill said it best:  "And each one feeds the crocodile, hoping the crocodile will eat him last."  Of course, what Churchill meant was:  People, that's NOT the way.  KILL the fucking crocodile before he eats anyone else.

I certainly wasn't joking, Professor.  The world has a way of taking care of its own evil, unlikely as it seems each time.  Who would have foreseen Britain, the U.S.A., France and Russia as allies?  An explosion of evil such as you are talking about is going to cause a major reaction simply because the consciences of people around the world will be shocked.  They don't shock easily, or all at once, but there is a tipping point.  I theorize that action such as you have suggested would reach that tipping point, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean my theory is wrong, only that I set the tipping point too low.

[Christians4LessGvt]

today a lot of people have nukes.  Russia.  China.  India.  Pakistan. 

oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States
because the United States brings Iran to it's knees with conventional air power.
an ally of the US is going to commit suicide over Iran being demilitarized.
yeah sure

And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked.

Nuked?
Who said anything about nuking iran?
That would not be needed.
However I assure you India/Pakistan and the others would be intimidated if Iran lay in ashes.
None of them can match the United States in technology and would not commit suicide for Iran.
But they would not be intimidated long because they would quickly see and actually already know why Iran was targeted.

But they will start to think, "Who's next?" 
No they wouldn't because they wouldn't be next.
China is a huge US trade partner and is not talking of "wiping Israel off the map"
Same with India and Russia who have astronauts on US Space shuttles.
In fact Russia & China would most likely be the biggest benefactors rebuilding Iran once the Terror Mullahs are out of power.

[Michael Tee]

<<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States
because the United States brings Iran to it's knees with conventional air power.
an ally of the US is going to commit suicide over Iran being demilitarized.
yeah sure>>

I guess you didn't read carefully enough.  My point was that a mad dog on the loose (Hitler, the USA following the course recommended by the Professor) creates defensive alliances.   The key word is alliance.  Using Churchill's "crocodile" metaphor, the croc is bigger than any of the people who feed it out of fear.  It can eat any ONE of them.  The solution is for them all together to take on the crocodile, because otherwise the crocodile eats them one at a time.  Get it, Einstein?

<<Who said anything about nuking iran?>>

That's what I took from the reference to Iran being turned into ashes.  My mistake.

<<However I assure you India/Pakistan and the others would be intimidated if Iran lay in ashes.>>

For sure the other nuclear powers would be alarmed.  Some of them would take on the appeasers' role for a time - - feed the crocodile, or the crocodile can turn on you next.  Sure.  They WOULD be intimidated.  But at some point, the realization would dawn on them - - any one of them could receive the same treatment if they pissed off the U.S.A.  Alone, there is no protection.  Together . . .  This is how alliances are formed.  Common needs, common fears.  Common bullies, common menaces.

<<None of them can match the United States in technology . . . >>

One or two years ago, the head of China's military committed China to achieve technological parity with the U.S.A. in military technology within 15 years.  My guess is that in less than 15 years they will achieve parity and then they will surpass the U.S.

<< . . . and would not commit suicide for Iran.>>

You're stating the obvious.  They wouldn't commit suicide for anything.  OTOH, they would seek a kind of collective security that would guarantee them that they would never have to submit to U.S. nuclear blackmail.  That could guarantee that whatever the U.S. wanted from them, they would not end up as the next Iran. 

<<But they would not be intimidated long because they would quickly see and actually already know why Iran was targeted.>>

What are they, stupid?  They already know why Iran was targeted.  Same reason Iraq was targeted.  Both had something that the U.S. wanted very badly.  You think this is some fucking mystery?  Only in America are people so fucking dumb that they don't know why Iraq and Iran are targeted.

<<No they wouldn't [start to think "Who's next?"] because they wouldn't be next.>>

Yeah, obviously not.  Didn't Hitler assure Neville Chamberlain that "after the Sudeten German question is settled, that is the end of Germany's territorial claims in Europe?"  Where are the guarantees that they wouldn't be next?  The word of the President of the USA?  A country which cheerfully tore up the Charter of the United Nations which it was a party to in order to get at the oil of Iraq?

<<China is a huge US trade partner and is not talking of "wiping Israel off the map"

<<Same with India and Russia who have astronauts on US Space shuttles.
<<In fact Russia & China would most likely be the biggest benefactors rebuilding Iran once the Terror Mullahs are out of power.>>

If you lived in a neighbourhood where one guy violently assaulted three of your neighbours in a row, one after the other, I think you'd have to be nuts not to be a little afraid of him.  I think everyone in the neighbourhood would be afraid of him.  He might tell you why he assaulted each of his neighbours:  this guy, he had some boarders in his house and they blew up a building on my property and killed some of my family; that guy, he was hiding weapons in his attic and I was afraid he was going to give them to bad crazy people so they could kill me; and that guy, he was trying to build a bomb in his basement.  Now, you might think, hey, this guy's all right, we oughtta be friends - - why should I worry, because (a) I don't have any boarders in my home who'd blow up any of his buildings and (b) I don't have any weapons hidden in my attic and (c) I'm not building a bomb in my basement.  I would think most people would have a different take on this - - that here is a guy who doesn't hesitate to resort to violence without calling in the police whenever he feels threatened.  He's the biggest guy in the neighbourhood, he's got more weapons than anyone else, and yet everyone he attacks, he claims was some kind of threat to him.  I think any sane normal person would be scared stiff of this guy - - it's like, Holy Shit, what if he gets the idea that I am fucking with him?  What if he wants ME to do something that I don't want to do?

Internationally, I think the U.S. would be seen - - especially if it turned Iran to ashes - - as a threat and a menace.  Its excuses for Iran and Iraq are transparently phony.  NOBODY would believe them.  It would be inevitable that each member of the international community would recognize that the U.S. was no threat to it only for as long as it gave no offence to the U.S.  One country, and only one country, could get its way in anything, anywhere, simply by the threat or use of violence.  How long do you really think it would take before other countries saw the menace, the intolerability of living in a world where so much power resided in just one country, where the combined strengths of the other countries could overwhelm it?

[The_Professor]

That's how it works, Professor.  People got brave when Russia was in ashes.  400 miles deep, and burned to the ground.  Millions dead.  And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.

What's the other side of the story?  Japan gave up after being nuked only twice.  Makes sense.  They didn't have any allies.  They didn't have any nukes.  The game was over.

Today a lot of people have nukes.  Russia.  China.  India.  Pakistan.  And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked.  But they will start to think, "Who's next?"  The logic of the situation would be inexorable.  Churchill said it best:  "And each one feeds the crocodile, hoping the crocodile will eat him last."  Of course, what Churchill meant was:  People, that's NOT the way.  KILL the fucking crocodile before he eats anyone else.

I certainly wasn't joking, Professor.  The world has a way of taking care of its own evil, unlikely as it seems each time.  Who would have foreseen Britain, the U.S.A., France and Russia as allies?  An explosion of evil such as you are talking about is going to cause a major reaction simply because the consciences of people around the world will be shocked.  They don't shock easily, or all at once, but there is a tipping point.  I theorize that action such as you have suggested would reach that tipping point, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean my theory is wrong, only that I set the tipping point too low.

BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)

[Michael Tee]

<<BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)>>

You know, Professor, there are definite stylistic differences between you and ChristiansUnited.  For example, <<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States>> is just NOT your style.  Way too juvenile for you.  More like sirs' style than anyone else's here.  But I was kind of confused and thought somewhere back in the thread you had said you WERE ChristiansUnited. 

"BT ratted me out."  BT revealed that you WERE or WERE NOT ChristiansUnited?

Bottom line, as I now understand it, Professor:  You are NOT ChristiansUnited.  Sorry for the mixup.

[Michael Tee]

Not happy with my last answer to Professor or maybe it was to ChristiansUnited.   Whoever it was raised some good points against my theory that the other major nuclear powers would band together in fear of America and nuke America.  That's bullshit.  I'm gonna go back to basics and see if I can reason this out on the fly.

Starting with the suggestion that America force Iran to do its will by an escalating series of violent acts culminating in Iran being turned into a field of ashes (which I mistook for a nuclear attack.)

My gut feeling is that this will never happen because it is something that is just so WRONG that it won't be done.  And yet, if the leadership of America is as evil and ruthless as I claim it is, why wouldn't they do just that?

They're afraid.  They know how much anti-American anger is boiling out there in the world and I think they believe that treating Iran in this manner just might lead to the pot boiling over.  The anger of the common man and the anger of the men whose job it is normally to keep the common man in line.  The police superintendents, the guy with the keys to the armory.  Some day, the U.S. will do something that not only sends the mobs out into the streets but has even eaten into the soul of the men who are supposed to beat the mobs back, and so the police aren't dispatched, or if they're dispatched, they join the mob, the guns aren't locked up, the guards walk away from the Presidential Palace and millionaires' row and all of a sudden what used to be the government of the place has been beaten to pulp, dragged through the streets by their ankles, strung up upside down on lamp-posts and set ablaze with kerosene.  Another U.S. puppet government falls.  THAT'S what they're really afraid of - - the anger of the people. 

My crocodile analogy was wrong.  It applied to truly sovereign nations, whereas today you have closer interlocking international trade and other ties.  One of the nuclear powers, Pakistan, has been virtually sold out to the U.S.A. anyway.  Stupid analogy, bad argument.  Sorry.

Also, I don't want to leave the impression that the moral factor would be completely irrelevant.  Even if the decision-makers of the U.S. government were completely amoral, they would still have to take into account the moral outrage that their actions would generate in the U.S. and abroad.  And some of the actors themselves may at some point just balk at the immorality of the whole idea. Or at least find reasons not to go ahead with it.

I would say that while moral considerations can't be ruled out completely, the major factor preventing the U.S. from implementing an escalating policy of violence against Iraq to make it comply with U.S. demands would be fear - - fear of the international reaction, particularly in the client or puppet states currently under the complete control of the U.S.A.

[The_Professor]

<<BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)>>

You know, Professor, there are definite stylistic differences between you and ChristiansUnited.  For example, <<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States>> is just NOT your style.  Way too juvenile for you.  More like sirs' style than anyone else's here.  But I was kind of confused and thought somewhere back in the thread you had said you WERE ChristiansUnited. 

"BT ratted me out."  BT revealed that you WERE or WERE NOT ChristiansUnited?

Bottom line, as I now understand it, Professor:  You are NOT ChristiansUnited.  Sorry for the mixup.

Nope, I'm NOT. I was jus having a little fun! BT is such a party-pooper! :-)

[Plane]

One would hope that  ademocratic government could be changed without resorting to mobbing the street.

Establishing Democracy is attacking the root problem.


Attacking the regio for the sake of oil is a complete fiction , but it is a fiction that a lot of people beleive  so they die for it.

[Cynthia]

"I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government.  They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself. "

Laughable, MT. Not even close. Facts please....Facts to back up this outrageous statement. 

[Cynthia]

"I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government.  They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself

btw, there was a reason I highlighted the quote in yellow......

can't read it....
must read it.....
It's still outrageous in any color.
Iran has more on the ball that you think. You just don't realize how much. An Arab can't even touch the mastermind of the Persian. Watch very closely....be very afraid. Russia, North Korea and Israel will be part of this game...wait and see.