Path to War: A new American disaster ?

[Sixpack]

I dont know about this post, folks, but I just want to share.

Path to War refers to the HBO movie-documentary I just watched on dvd, about America getting itself kneedeep in **** in Vietnam and basically screwing itself up. It's also about the American people versus their administration. And in the end it's about 'retreat with honor' for which I further recommend the movie-documentary 'Nixon' with Brit Sir Anthony Hopkins as a memorable and credible 'retreat with honor' president Nixon.

To cut a long -very familiar to all- Vietnam story short, I dont think America should lead military sanctions against Iran.

(...)

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

And if there are no volunteers, the world's family of nations will have gained a new nuclear power, being Iran,

and God help us all....

But no bombs or American grunts are going to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, let alone make the desired peace with Iran complying to the UN-terms.

Again, save yourself the trouble and the trauma...

On this fine first Easter night (GMT/UTC+1), I bid you all goodnight

[Oberon]

The reaccuring theme I seem to see here is that 'Iran with nukes is bad' and 'America shouldn't attack Iran'.
Now I can't see how the two fit together...I agree, Iran with nukes is not going to be a good thing for its neighbours or (in the long term) the western nations, but I sincerely doubt that the EU waggling its finger at Tehran is going to do much.
Now, I'm not a person to advocate war, to be honest with you I'd prefer it if we didn't go in and stir up trouble...but...who else is going to? Like it or not we've got so far into this whole Midden Eastern mess that there is no easy way out, there is no chance of just saying 'Right, screw you guys I'm going home.", and I can't help but think that peace is something that's just not going to happen...no matter who you appease, and no matter who you bomb...there'll always be the religious zealots who declare death to the infidels...likewise there will always be those who retaliate in kind.
Religion is an extension of human nature, what you take from it depends on who you are and what you think. Use it for war or for peace.
However, two things I am sure on, now and forever...using nukes to stop nukes is crazy and hypocritical, and a ground war in Iran isn't going to be a pretty sight. What this leaves...I couldn't tell you...I don't work for the Pentagon...

[AleyArk]

Originally Posted by Sixpack

To cut a long -very familiar to all- Vietnam story short, I dont think America should lead military sanctions against Iran.

(...)

I think I am doing you American guys a favor here. Just don't do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Skip the crap for once. Don't be an eager beaver all the time.

And if there are no volunteers, the world's family of nations will have gained a new nuclear power, being Iran,

and God help us all....

OK, sounds good to me, with one provision: If the US is hit with a WMD, we get to retaliate against multiple targets in the ME, and all the capitals in Europe. I mean, by constantly restraining the US from defending itself, isn't Europe culpable? That way, if you guys are comfortable with an nuclear Iran knowing you will take a hit if we do, I guess we can live with it.

[CCIP]

I think we all know that a ground war with Iran should be absolutely out of question. Don't even think of it.

But I think it's utter proposterous BS to say that - innocent lives and terrible collateral damage aside - that the Americans can't bomb anything into submission. Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

At this point, I think it will and should come down to an air war with Iran. I'd like to see it conducted in the most calculated and "humane" way possible; you can't hope for much more, and we've much to fear from anything less!

(yep. Even the self-professed pacifist I am, I don't see a point in denying that this will probably have to happen.)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Again, disregarding the costs and possible consequences for a second, there's nothing that the US can't bomb to smitherines :hmm:

Ooooh....do you think if I send a target list to the White House I can get my workplace blown up? It'd give me a lie-in tomorrow

Originally Posted by CCIP

At this point, I think it will and should come down to an air war with Iran. I'd like to see it conducted in the most calculated and "humane" way possible; you can't hope for much more, and we've much to fear from anything less!

Yeah, that's what I'm getting the feeling is gonna happen. I just hope they don't use the mini-nukes, AFBs is fair deals (nuke effects with less long term damage) but mini-nukes...not wise...not wise at all.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Ooooh....do you think if I send a target list to the White House I can get my workplace blown up? It'd give me a lie-in tomorrow

Do you make WMDs for extremist wacknuts at work?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Do you make WMDs for extremist wacknuts at work?

Well...the sausages look a bit dodgy some mornings...and some of our customers could definately be defined as wacknuts...so I think I'm in with a good chance!

[Torplexed]

My fear is that if we do conduct a air campaign against Iran to shut down their nuclear program, then whatever assistance they are already rendering to the trouble-makers next door in Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly become a torrent. We're gonna have to be ready to conduct a major naval operation to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to tanker traffic as well.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

My fear is that if we do conduct a air campaign against Iran to shut down their nuclear program, then whatever assistance they are already rendering to the trouble-makers next door in Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly become a torrent. We're gonna have to be ready to conduct a major naval operation to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to tanker traffic as well.

Which is why, I think, the operation shouldn't be against only the nuclear program, but also generally aimed at their military infrastructure and key industry. It won't do anyone any good to take out their current WMD production capability without weakening Iran, both to make them not try anything like it in the future, and also make it less "interesting" for them to support ventures into Iraq or Afghanistan.

Obviously everything is going to come at a cost, but I think there's a real chance to keep a "clean" air war a-la Kosovo - I'm a BIG critic of that effort, but it's hard to deny that it was not a messy affair from the American perspective like Iraq is (some obvious cover-ups and excuses helped as well), and did not cause any real divisions in home politics.

I'm thinking that this'll depend on how unpopular Iran gets - if it gets irritating enough not to cause prolonged political damage at home in due time, then I bet this will be run towards the end of Bush's term sometime. There is a number of ways in which a "clean" war would help, even. :hmm:

[Sixpack]

I know we got a gung-ho bunch here but response so far surprises me, but okay....

@CCIP, my message was:

Sure, the US can blow stuff up big time. They are vey keen bombers So: Big deal, we all know that.

But this is not just about bombing places to smithereens. It's about achieving a real single result : Iran not getting nukes. 'Getting' as in future, and as you know that may be a very long time still...

This is not about good old fashioned conquest and occupation as in i.e. Roman or Hitler's times, thus physically controlling the hot zone.

So, and even more so than Vietnam, which after all got the crap bombed out of it in Rolling Thunder (my apologies to the Vietnamese readers if I sound disrespectful here; not intended), bombs will not break Iranian -read radical islamist- spirit. Furthermore, this will not remain an isolated Iran thing. Over time -probably soon- it will surely all backfire on the attacker.

I think the Euros will not go to war with Iran. You know how Europe is. And I'd be surprised to see America taking on Iran, never mind the tough talk as part of diplomacy and even the (already) longtime military planning of the Admin . I dont think the American people will have it.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Sixpack

But this is not just about bombing places to smithereens. It's about achieving a real single result : Iran not getting nukes. 'Getting' as in future, and as you know that may be a very long time still...

Yes, but this single result as such is not neccesarily enough. Not that I (of all people ) want to see a big-time war over Iran, but the fact is - their nukes are really a very marginal threat to the US itself, but much more so to US interests and influence in the middle east. In fact it's not the nukes, it's Iran itself that's a threat. And an Iran without nukes - but with a tooth against the US for taking away their nukes - is probably more rather than less dangerous in that sense.

No matter how you cut it, a war against Iran's nukes is a war against Iran. The end result should be as much about the nukes going away as Iran (i.e., their strength as a serious regional power in the near future) going away. Otherwise, they won't be very happy even without their nukes, and I'd rank their potential of causing a serious mess in the middle east as very high if unchecked.

[Sixpack]

Either way Iran will remain a problem, with nukes and without nukes.

With nukes: Obvious, a player. Main question is though: is it likely Iran will use nukes as agressor ?

Without nukes: An eternal breeding ground for nothing-to-lose Allah-Akhbar terrorists, all aimed against you know who...

[CCIP]

True, but even Saudi Arabia very much fits the description of the latter - that's not something that America has the power to eradicate by any justifiable method. The key difference is that Saudi Arabia doesn't mind working with the US and behaves fairly passively as a middle-eastern power.

Unfortunately, living with conservative Islamic elements will be a fact of life for the world for a while yet. But there is a big difference between conservative Islamic elements (in their majority) sitting quietly and minding their own business in the desert and trading oil for various goods with the US, versus conservative Islamic elements flexing their military muscle at everyone around them.

And, hey, I don't see the US going to war against Saudi Arabia anytime soon - terrorists are terrorists, but it's higher-level cooperation or hostility otherwise that makes a difference :hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay, I will finally sound-off on the Iran issue here; away from the cage fighting found elsewhere.

Currenly, Iran claims 164 centerfuges. Not all of these systems are operable. To generate the amount of fissable material needed to produce a weapon, a much higher number of centerfuges are required.

With 3000, enough material for a weapon (low yield, mind you) could be produced in approximately 271 days.

With 54,000, the process is shortened to 21 days.

Iran with nuclear weapons is a problem, but we have time. One does not construct a nuclear centerfuge overnight. Calls for immediate action are unfounded. All they can currently do with their fissable material is turn turbines.

[CCIP]

Yea, I agree on that - but remember how easy it is to tell the largely-uninformed public things - I again distinctly recall the Kosovo conflict and the ridiculously-inaccurate presentations of excuses for various incidents of "wrong targets" being hit, with the public remaining largely non-vocal because they were given enough incomprehensible techy-detail and pictures of fuzzy screens that they couldn't possibly understand. :hmm:

Again, I would say that a war against Iran would mainly be a political undertaking; the fact that it can at some point make nukes and is putting itself in a rather stubborn position makes Iran a very easy target for labelling as a "WMD threat of the 1st category". Which it isn't neccesarily (certainly not more than Korea, which is much further along in that regard).