Report of Iranians Ambushing U.S. Soldiers

[raptor10]

I think a war with Iran would be along the lines of what our military is most familiar with. If we stay away from creating an occupying force, based on my knowledges, strikes with the intention of a regime change (killing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and destruction of a percentage of nuclear capability would be possible. The Arab and Muslim world is not some invincible enemy, they just have a higher threshold for pain than we do. If we keep hurting them they will collapse.

 

[raptor10]

Yeah, I am not thinking a sampling of History Channel viewers is going to represenative of the country or the world........

Yeah, I'd say they are more conservative and learned. I recently ran into a girl who thought the Holocaust had something to do with nuclear weapons. She was hot so I put up with it...

 

[Brett327]

I think a war with Iran would be along the lines of what our military is most familiar with. If we stay away from creating an occupying force based in my knowledges, strikes with the intention of a regime change (killing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and destruction of a percentage of nuclear capability would be possible. The Arab and Muslim world is not some invincible enemy, they just have a higher threshold for pain than we do. If we keep hurting them they will collapse.

You can't apply the regime change option to Iran like Iraq. Ultimately, their president is just a facade and mouthpiece for the variety of religious leaders within their executive and legislative bodies. A clean sweep of the whole lot would be a challenge at best. IMO, a radical change in government there initiated from the outside would be close to impossible. We've thoroughly fvcked up Iraq, and they didn't even put up a fight. Time to take on the lessons of recent history.

Brett

 

[Kickflip89]

^^agree w/ Brett. Sometimes I wonder if the best way to get a message to Iran is to develop alternative sources of energy as quickly as possible. Actually, Jim Cramer suggested putting a huge tax on gasoline in order to drive down consumption of oil / speed the development of alternative fuels.

I kind of like this idea: We all suffer at the pumps for a while, everybody sacrifices, but not a whole lot, and it has the potential to send a strong message to Iran.

EDIT: on the other hand, it kind of messes with the free market.../shrug worth considering, though.

 

[raptor10]

Well, than we have a problem. How do we:

1. Prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
2. How do prevent terrorist attacks on our nation?
3. How should the U.S. respond to those that profess to want to reenact Hitler's Holocaust?
4. What is America's role in the post cold war world?

 

[raptor10]

^^agree w/ Brett. Sometimes I wonder if the best way to get a message to Iran is to develop alternative sources of energy as quickly as possible. Actually, Jim Cramer suggested putting a huge tax on gasoline in order to drive down consumption of oil / speed the development of alternative fuels.

I kind of like this idea: We all suffer at the pumps for a while, everybody sacrifices, but not a whole lot, and it has the potential to send a strong message to Iran.

EDIT: on the other hand, it kind of messes with the free market.../shrug worth considering, though.

Thats a horrible idea, so in order to prevent the Iranians from hurting the American people, we should hurt them first to attain what would probably be the same end result. Why don't we just offer incentives and subsidies towards better alternative energy problems...?

 

[Kickflip89]

Well, than we have a problem. How do we:

1. Prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
2. How do prevent terrorist attacks on our nation?
3. How should the U.S. respond to those that profess to want to reenact Hitler's Holocaust?
4. What is America's role in the post cold war world?

1. Right, so either diplomacy/inspections or military action is the only real way to do that. Right now, we don't seem to have any leverage to use against Iran at the bargaining table, so military action looks to be the best option.

2. I am by no means an expert, but I'm not sure what military action against Iran has to do with preventing terrorist attacks on our nation. Do you mean if they develop a nuke and use it against us?

3. Somewhere between ignoring them and wiping them off the face of the planet is my guess. That is: I'd have to believe there was a good chance that this guy was ACTUALLY going to do something, as opposed to just talk about it before considering taking him out.

4. Beats me, but I'll give it a shot. Our obligation to the GWOT is obviously one of the major factors, and military action goes hand in hand with that. Of course, the U.S. also has the opportunity to be a leader in establishing healthy east-west relationships if that is possible. Finally, there's a country called China...

I'm not saying we should be afraid of a fight with Iran...I'm saying that it will cost us, and we should be very sure about what it is we are going to gain from such a fight. I just don't really understand what is to be gained at this point.

Letting Iran develop the bomb is out of the question. If it came down to either using military force, or letting Iran develop a nuclear weapon, that's a no-brainer.

Cramer suggested taxing oil because it would give us leverage to use in diplomatic talks. That is, it would have an immediate effect on consumption, which would start to hurt Iran NOW.

 

[Flash]

Well, than we have a problem. How do we:

1. Prevent Iran from getting the bomb?

Good question........military force may not be the best option in this case though.........and who says that we can effectively strike their nuclear facilities?

2. How do prevent terrorist attacks on our nation?

Use all of our power and resources to seek out and prevent those who might harm us from doing so. By the way, our power and resources are not limited to military force......

3. How should the U.S. respond to those that profess to want to reenact Hitler's Holocaust?

Point and laugh......seriously, letting morons put their own feet in their mouths is usually the best policy......

4. What is America's role in the post cold war world?

Uhhhhh, protect our interests and those of our allies? I feel like I am back in class at school........

Any more?

 

[Brett327]

Well, than we have a problem. How do we:

1. Prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
2. How do prevent terrorist attacks on our nation?
3. How should the U.S. respond to those that profess to want to reenact Hitler's Holocaust?
4. What is America's role in the post cold war world?

1. We probably don't unless we're willing to endure a whole lot of pain. An Iranian nuke is certainly sub-optimal, and likely inevitable, but it's also not the end of the world. When the Soviets and China got the bomb, we didn't attack them. I don't know what the best course is, but there are many alternatives to military strikes. The Iranians are fundamentally rational actors and, despite the rhetoric, aren't going to blatantly use nuclear weapons - something which would instantly seal their fate. They want nukes because it elevates their status and gives them bargaining power.

2. Continue to pursue them diligently - like we do today. It's worked well so far, but we would be naive to think it can't/won't happen again. Attacking Iran doesn't stop terrorism.

3. A resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, even steady progress in that area will pay many dividends. The ISG contains many recommendations in that vein on the diplomatic front - recommendations which are not now the policy of the present administration.

4. The US will continue to be a military and economic hegemon in the years to come, but short-sighted policies which increase our degree of isolation from allies and the developed world unnecessarily complicate and constrain our freedom of action. There is a happy medium between radical unilateralism and United Nations kumbayah love fests that accomplish nothing.

Brett

 

[Flash]

1. We probably don't unless we're willing to endure a whole lot of pain. An Iranian nuke is certainly sub-optimal, and likely inevitable, but it's also not the end of the world. When the Soviets and China got the bomb, we didn't attack them. I don't know what the best course is, but there are many alternatives to military strikes. The Iranians are fundamentally rational actors and, despite the rhetoric, aren't going to blatantly use nuclear weapons - something which would instantly seal their fate. They want nukes because it elevates their status and gives them bargaining power.

2. Continue to pursue them diligently - like we do today. It's worked well so far, but we would be naive to think it can't/won't happen again. Attacking Iran doesn't stop terrorism.

3. A resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, even steady progress in that area will pay many dividends. The ISG contains many recommendations in that vein on the diplomatic front - recommendations which are not now the policy of the present administration.

4. The US will continue to be a military and economic hegemon in the years to come, but short-sighted policies which increase our degree of isolation from allies and the developed world unnecessarily complicate and constrain our freedom of action. There is a happy medium between radical unilateralism and United Nations kumbayah love fests that accomplish nothing.

Brett

Wow, Brett actually seems to be learning something in college.......

 

[Brett327]

Wow, Brett actually seems to be learning something in college.......

I consider it proper stewardship of the taxpayer dollars.

BTW, Jim Cramer is a complete idiot. Nobody should be getting their investment advice from him, much less ideas on foreign policy.

Brett

 

[thull]

What about MAD (mutually assured destruction)? If a state develops a bomb, and a little while later it explodes in NYC, then that state would soon thereafter cease to exist. Not like The Bomb would not be traced to its origin. How does that figure into the fear of other states developing the bomb?

 

[thull]

Damn Brett...didn't read your posts till after I posted. I hate to admit we agree on some things..

 

[Flash]

I consider it proper stewardship of the taxpayer dollars.

BTW, Jim Cramer is a complete idiot. Nobody should be getting their investment advice from him, much less ideas on foreign policy.

Brett

So you are saying you did not want to waste the Navy's money on wine, women and song in SOCAL? What is wrong with you?!

Why, you don't like his calm demeanor and understated delivery?

 

[snake020]

What about MAD (mutually assured destruction)? If a state develops a bomb, and a little while later it explodes in NYC, then that state would soon thereafter cease to exist. Not like The Bomb would not be traced to its origin. How does that figure into the fear of other states developing the bomb?

What if The Bomb can't be traced because it was given to terrorist bastards? Go watch this season of 24.