heard some moron leftist professor excusing terrorist ayers

[Plane]

1.  I am extremely skeptical of any anti-communist propaganda;

Scepticism isn't bad , selective scepticism is , if you were equally sceptical of pro communist reports I would have a lot less fun with you.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"They only surrendered when faced with the "new weapon" which threatened the devastation of all life on their islands"

BINGO!
Total or believable threats of total annihilation of an enemy works.
I promise you Iran would behave if I was in control.

[Michael Tee]

Total or believable threats of total annihilation of an enemy works.
I promise you Iran would behave if I was in control.
=======================================================
If it's that simple, how come no U.S. President including the incumbent has seen it that way?  Are they all a bunch of spineless wimps?  And you, by contrast to each of them, are the only "real man"?

I kinda suspect it can't be that simple.  Would the American people countenance the "total anihilation" of millions of fellow human beings simply because their leadership wouldn't toe the U.S. line?  I mean, to be a "believable threat" it has to be carried out.  Otherwise there is no way to know if the other side is bluffing or not.  The U.S. didn't pose a "believable threat" to the Japs till it anihilated two of their cities.

And then there's the international scene to consider.  Regardless of what Russia or China may think of Iran, what they would focus on would be a "mad dog" country with nuclear weapons, determined to enforce its will on others and stopping at nothing to do so.  This presents a danger to anyone who does not wish to toe the U.S. line.  Kind of like Germany in the 1940s.  This presents them with two stark alternatives:  either feed the crocodile, as in Winston Churchill's metaphor, "And each one feeds the crocodile, hoping the crocodile will eat him last," or take bold, united action, no matter how costly, to destroy the crocodile and restore some measure of peace and justice to the world.  An attack on Iran such as you have described would be a powerful reason for the rest of the world to put aside their differences to slay the crocodile.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"If it's that simple, how come no U.S. President including the incumbent has seen it that way? 
Are they all a bunch of spineless wimps?  And you, by contrast to each of them, are the only "real man"?"


Michael do you not read? And just jump to your preconceived conclusions.

I stated "if i was in control".

It would be VERY SIMPLE if I was in control.
Iran would be given a deadline.
It would be their choice.
They would be in control of their own destiny.

If they did not comply bombing of miltary installations would begin.
Then they could decide if they wanted to comply or more bombing.
Again their choice.
If needed all the military installations would be rubble within 6 weeks.
With all of their military destroyed they would stop exporting terror
and have their hands full at home trying to survive.
Bombing would be "stair-stepped" until they comply or are destroyed.

As far as the rest of the world, like they are a bunch of tough guys
France?....LOL.....China?....Yeah what Navy? What Air Force?
Russia isn't capable and would not want to take on the US Air Force in Iran.

See the difference is Michael we can destroy Iran, we have that power.
And Iran doesn't it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Suppose someone sank a couple of big tankers in a strategic part of the Strait of Hormuz.

That would cut off oil deliveries from Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE and most of Saudi Arabia. That is abpout a third of the world supply.

The US does not have the power to destroy Iran, probably not with major quantities of nukes, and certain not without them.

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael do you not read? And just jump to your preconceived conclusions.>>

Don't worry about me, CU4, I can read very well, thank you.

<<I stated "if i was in control".>>

Yes, I read that, and I asked you how come none of the other presidents including this incumbent saw the thing as clearly as you do?  In other words, why don't they act if it's so obvious?  Are they all too stupid to see what you see so clearly?  Or do they see it, but just lack the balls to do what needs to be done? 

<<It would be VERY SIMPLE if I was in control.
<<Iran would be given a deadline.
<<It would be their choice.
<<They would be in control of their own destiny.>>

Well, if I were the President of Iraq at the time, I would wipe my ass with your deadline and tell you to go fuck yourself.  What then?

<<If they did not comply bombing of miltary installations would begin.>>

Oh yeah.  Like in Viet Nam.  THAT worked out real well, didn't it?

<<Then they could decide if they wanted to comply or more bombing.
<<Again their choice.>>

They'd want more bombing.  And at the same time, they'd look for U.S.  military bases over the Iraq border, up-dating their maps with help from their many friends in Iraq.  And send some missiles onto the U.S. bases.  And maybe activate a few sleeper cells in the U.S.  See what kinda hell they could raise there.


<<If needed all the military installations would be rubble within 6 weeks.
<<With all of their military destroyed they would stop exporting terror
and have their hands full at home trying to survive.
<<Bombing would be "stair-stepped" until they comply or are destroyed.>>

I've seen that movie before.  "Viet Nam," wasn't it?  It ended with the bad guys running away like whipped dogs and a red flag raised over Saigon.  Great ending and boy how I'd love to see a repeat of it.

<<As far as the rest of the world, like they are a bunch of tough guys
<<France?....LOL.....China?....Yeah what Navy? What Air Force?
<<Russia isn't capable and would not want to take on the US Air Force in Iran.>>

Well,  you're probably right, CU4.  These countries won't take on the US, even in a united front.  Primarily because they don't give a shit about Iran.  Probably you'll get bogged down in Iran same as you're bogged down in Iraq, only much much worse because there are roughly four times as many people there, and it's a pretty mountainous terrain, the military can disperse and tie you down.  If the Iraq war so far has cost you three trillion bucks (and Nobel-Prize-winning Professor John Stieglitz says it has) figure that four times as many people in a more mountainous terrain will cost you roughly four times that amount, or maybe 12 trillion bucks.  Plus you are still blowing $10 billion a month in Iraq, which you are not even close to subduing and Afghanistan.

Bottom line, CU4, is for all your tough talking, you're a bunch of gutless wimps and you can't do jack-shit because you're never going to send your soldiers in to fight mano-a-mano with the other side on the ground, so your cowardice forces you to rely on high-tech weapons which are slowly bankrupting you and now, financially, you are at the end of your rope.

<<See the difference is Michael we can destroy Iran, we have that power.>>

The obvious answer to that, CU4, is that if you really could destroy Iran, you would have found some phony pretext and done so long ago.  Obviously, if "destroying" Iraq is the answer, a long line of U.S. Presidents would have figured that out long ago and done so if it were possible, because (no disrespect intended, CU4) you can't possibly be smarter than all of them and all of their advisers, and everything else has already been tried.

Not only do you not have the power to destroy Iran, you don't even have the wherewithal to subdue and occupy Iraq, which is why your sorry asses will be hauled out of there in just a few more years.  You are broke, my friend, flat busted broke and you don't have the money for any more unprovoked and unnecessary wars of aggression, when even a tiny country like Iraq can whip your ass for five straight years, which incidentally was more than all the time you spent in WWII.

You talk a tough fight, but it's like you're selling 20th century policies in a 21st century world.  The days when America ruled the roost are fast coming to an end.  Other countries are growing relatively stronger and America is growing relatively weaker.  Iraq and its cost should have been a wake-up call.  It's a very small country and it cost you $3 trillion.  You have little to gain by trying to bend Iran to your will and would be better off focusing on more constructive activities.  Your boasting and threats are just immature and self-destructive.  You desperately need a new perspective.

[Plane]

=======================================================

I kinda suspect it can't be that simple.  Would the American people countenance the "total anihilation" of millions of fellow human beings simply because their leadership wouldn't toe the U.S. line? 

Not lightly , when it was done , there was a reasonable expectation that our victims would kill a lot of Americans and the use of these wepons was accepted widely because this expectation was widely held.

I think that if we had an enemy that was genuinely frightening we would bomb them till we were no longer frightened.

Note that during the Cold War we prepared an array of wepons sufficient to deter a very determined Soviet Union and left it cocked for instant use for two generations , without actually useing it , but the Soviets were sufficently frightening to prompt the creation of this massive , literally Earth shattering wepon , and the aiming and prepareing of it. I don't think we liked it , but we accepted it and tacitly and also purposefully gave permission to the President to fire it on a moments notice.