Third Option For Dealing With Iran

[WarrenPlatts]

When Alexander the Great swept through the Middle East, he didn't mess around much with occupations or supply lines--he kept his main force together and just kept moving forward, living off the land. This suggests a third option:

We go in and wreck the place, but we don't stick around to help clean up the mess.

Over 90% of the casualties in the Iraq War have occurred during the occupation. Thus, the lesson is that we should just skip the occupation.

What we do is shoot down every airplane in their air force, sink what's left of their navy, and then move in with half a dozen divisions and we'll cut through them like a hot knife through warm butter. If they try to stand and fight anywhere, they will be decimated by the Air Force. Let them send human waves like they did against Iraq all they want. That's the easiest tactic of all to deal with. It will only create a lot of Iranian widows.

The thing is, we don't stop. We sweep through the country, destroy every weapons facility in the country, capture or kill every mullah and every nuclear scientist we can find, destroy every tank, artillery piece, jeep, and every Ak-47 we can lay our hands on--and then we just leave, taking with us about 200,000 POW's as hostages, and we simply leave the Iranians to their own devices.

The whole operation from commencement until the last soldier drives back into Iraq and Afghanistan would be over in three months at the outside. Fatalities would be on the order of those incurred during Desert Storm or the initial phase OIF. Supply lines won't be too much of a problem because we will be gone before the insurgency can get fully organized. And there won't be any supplies for them coming from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now, this probably will seem crazy at first, but consider the political fallout. The old regime WILL be shattered and scattered. Most government higher-ups will be dead or sent to Abu Graib. The progressives within Iran will justly be able to say that the mullahs brought on the invasion because of their insane hubris; meanwhile, the progressives could not be accused of collaborating with the Americans, because there will be no Americans to collaborate with. The defeat will actually be more humiliating than if we stayed and occupied them because there would be no one to strike back at to exact revenge. And they will be too busy rebuilding to embark on more international adventures.

And if ten years down the road, they start all over with their plans for the Bomb, well, we just do the blitzkrieg all over again. It's not like we haven't had reprise wars in the past (WWI-WWII, GWI-GWII). The cost in lives and dollars will be less than if we stayed and occupied the place for 10 years.

On the American side, the public will appreciate the built-in exit strategy. The Iranian civilian infrastructure will not be specifically targeted; thus, the oil will soon flow again. Fortunes will be made in oil speculation as the price spikes and then crashes. Moreover, since it cannot be perceived that the Americans are stealing the oil, since we will have left, there will be less motivation to sabotage the pipelines. If the whole op could be pulled off with fewer casualties than OIF, all will be forgiven. Catastrophic losses of aircraft carriers will be avoided by keeping them out of the Gulf until the missile threat is neutralized beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Eventually, a new government would form. Most likely, the new government would be sullen, but it would not be openly belligerant like it is now. Most likely, they will cooperate, especially if the families of the Iranian POW's ever want to see their husbands and fathers again. If the Americans know anything, it is how to run a prison system. Moreover, Iranian cooperation with the civilized world will be rewarded with reconstruction aid and trade.

 

[scott1]

Just go in there and invade them and go out is your plan?It won't work people who don't like it when bomb there country and do nothing help the innocent people victims.Eventally if we did do there your plan terroist take the country and then a lot of people in that country whould join which cause even more u.s. causilties

 

[Orefa]

You cannot be serious. It would take months and still cost lives. Nuke 'em from space instead. Do it now, along with North Korea. And Tibet, Tibetan bastards... Watch out Canada.

 

[BobG]

That would have been a good policy in Afghanistan. Not to the 'Sherman's March' extreme that you suggest, but definitely a 'take care of what you came to do and get out' type policy. We had a good reason to invade Afghanistan; additionally, leaving the other non-Taliban factions to fight over which group would be the new rulers wouldn't have been a situation much different than what Afghanistan has gone through for last few decades. In other words, we would have left Afghanistan no worse than it was before the invasion.

That policy doesn't work for a pre-emptive invasion. By about the second pre-emptive invasion (if not earlier), the world starts to recall Germany's invasion of Poland, followed by an invasion of Denmark and Norway, followed by an invasion of France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium.

You really need to make an extremely legitimate case for a pre-emptive invasion and had better do something that shows there's a difference between the US pre-emptive invasions, the German/Japanese pre-emptive invasions, and the Iraqi pre-emptive invasion of Kuwait. Especially if your pre-war intelligence turns out to have been crap.

 

[Treadstone 71]

You must be crazy. You're saying you're going to destroy that country's defenses, then leave it undefended, open to any foreign army attacks? Not very responsible to the civil propulation, are you?

This is exactly the gun-ho stereotype that is attributed to Americans that I hope is false in general.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

We would probably bomb for 40 days and 40 nights to soften them up first, but the actual land war would only last a very few months. The road from the Iraqi border through Hamadan and onto Tehran is about 400 miles. If the Army averages just 1 mile per hour (I walk 4 miles per hour), we'll have Tehran surrounded in 2-3 weeks.

As far as justification goes, the president of Iran has said the holocaust didn't happen and that he would like to wipe Isreal off the map. He has missiles capable of reaching Europe, which is why the E.U. is so concerned about Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism including groups like al Quaeda, Hizbollah, and Hamas. They can interdict world oil supplies out of the Gulf at will. If they acquire nukes, only their good will will prevent them from slipping a few to al Queada. The standard Al Quaeda tactic is multiple synchronized attacks. A synchronized nuclear attack on several U.S. cities is a risk that cannot be tolerated.

It's easy for a Canadian to say not to worry, but Montreal hasn't had any skyscrapers knocked down--yet.

 

[Treadstone 71]

Iran knocked down the twin towers? That's news to me.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well, we're not going to give them the chance. And by the way, have you looked at a map of the Middle East lately? Who's going to invade Iran after we bug out? Azerbaijan?

 

[scott1]

Iran is not going to nuke Isaril!Jeurelsum is there state reilgon's third most holiest city.They do hate Isaril but they're not going to nuke there holy land(it's called the holy land for all three reilgons that orginated from the middle east).I don't think we should start bombing Iran yet.We should try to get rid of there nukes diplomaticly.But that probally won't work(but it's worth try instead invading them without it)so milltary option is very likely.Were not going to invade right now we have to see if there's any other better ways(it worked for the Cuban missile cirsis)

You must be crazy. You're saying you're going to destroy that country's defenses, then leave it undefended, open to any foreign army attacks? Not very responsible to the civil propulation, are you?
This is exactly the gun-ho stereotype that is attributed to Americans that I hope is false in general.

It is crazy.Were not like the greeks(btw they called themselves hellans)were not going to go off and destroy a country like that.BTW that gun-ho American stero type is false,They don't exist(obvisoly with expection)

 

[SOS2008]

What I see in the OP is the typical hotheaded anti-Arab mentality in the U.S. You do not even give sincere thought as to why we should be so afraid of Iran in the first place, or the suffering to the Iranian people—or for that matter possible U.S. casualties, or that the Iranians are capable of giving us a good ass whopping right back, or how a peaceful solution would be far more beneficial to all, or that maybe Bush is even more of a maniac then Ahmadinejad.

Furthermore, you do not stop and think of Iran's history, a history of years of co-existence of Muslims along with Jews and Christians in their country (not to mention U.S. meddling). In fact, during the Persian Empire, Iran did much to help the Jewish people. And just maybe the current leader is making statements with motives other than you think, and that likewise Israel has made inflammatory comments (but that's okay, hmmm?). And maybe the Iranians are far more afraid of the U.S. then we are of them, for obvious reasons, and maybe they want sovereignty as a nation, which can make energy advances like any other country has, most notably the U.S. And if you are really concerned about nuclear proliferation, than let's dicuss this across the board.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

insane hubris

Yup...

 

[Blahness]

Sorry dude, but the innocents in the war would rebel.

Aka Terrorism would skyrocket.

 

[Lisa!]

:rofl: You must be very impressed by Alexander movie.(I've not watched this movie, but I guess you did)
this question's been in my mind from some years ago(say about 7 or 8 years ago) that I was watching a program on TV and a architect was proving that this attack might be a myth. I can't remember more though! Now my question is: Is this attack a proved historical fact or people aren't sure about it?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is this attack a proved historical fact or people aren't sure about it?

Which one? Maybe one in the movie you mention? I haven't seen it.

 

[Lisa!]

You know I was asking whether we're sure that Alexander attacked Iran or not! Don't bother yourself with my question though. I thought it's a good chance to get some information about this event, but well we're not in history and humanity forum.(sounds like that architect is the only person in the world who's in doubt about that attack.)

 

[Pengwuino]

What I see in the OP is the typical hotheaded anti-Arab mentality in the U.S. You do not even give sincere thought as to why we should be so afraid of Iran in the first place, or the suffering to the Iranian people—or for that matter possible U.S. casualties, or that the Iranians are capable of giving us a good ass whopping right back, or how a peaceful solution would be far more beneficial to all, or that maybe Bush is even more of a maniac then Ahmadinejad.

As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at anyone time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.

Russia and Iran enjoy a close military sales relationship, and have taken steps for the Russians to sell modernized air defense systems to Iran. In February 2001 a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry stated that "Iran hopes for ongoing military-technical cooperation with Russia. Our country plans to modernize Iranian Air Defense and it will ask Russia to sell some air defense systems in support of that."

An unknown number of "new" Su-25s were delivered to the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps Air Force (IRGCAF) in 2003. Where these Frogfoots originate from is unclear.

In July 2003 Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation (CAIC) unveiled the new ‘Super-7’ or Chao Qi fighter plane to the public. The new Super-7 is “an all-purpose light fighter, required to have all-weather operation capabilities, be capable of performing the dual tasks of dogfight and air-to-ground attack, and have the ability to launch medium-range missiles. Mass production of the fighter will not begin until two and a half years of research are completed. The plane is being produced to be sold abroad to developing nations. China already has received orders from Iran and some African countries.

There have been reports of some 10 F-8Ms "Finback", 7 Tu-22Ms, 19 MIG-27s, and several MIG-31s (Russia's most modern fighter aircraft, US$40 million ) being present in Iran, but these are not confirmed.

...The United States had over 2,000 attack aircraft by even 01. I guess America can always lose if your blindly anti-American enough right?

 

[Art]

It would be interesting if the US attacks Iran and it transpires that the North Koreans or Pakistan have already lent Iran a nuke or two.

In any case I don't think China or Russia would be very happy to see the US impose itself even further in the M.E. and I don't think even the most rabid Shrubites really want to risk an escalation that could lead to WW3.

 

[Anttech]

You must be very impressed by Alexander movie.(I've not watched this movie, but I guess you did)
this question's been in my mind from some years ago(say about 7 or 8 years ago) that I was watching a program on TV and a architect was proving that this attack might be a myth. I can't remember more though! Now my question is: Is this attack a proved historical fact or people aren't sure about it?

That film is a discredit to Alexander!

And to answer your question he took persia, and did some bad bad things to some beatiful cities...

 

[SOS2008]

...The United States had over 2,000 attack aircraft by even 01. I guess America can always lose if your blindly anti-American enough right?

And so? I didn’t say anything about losing a war.

Perhaps you have not noticed how poorly things have gone in Iraq. Perhaps you are unaware that Iran is a much stronger country than Iraq. Perhaps you have not thought how another military action would place added strain on our forces and coffers. Perhaps you have not considered that the U.S. can lose economically.

All China, or oil-producing countries like Iran have to do is change their currency from the U.S. dollar and we’ll be in deep s**t. You don’t have to actually lose a war to lose.

Anti-American people like you want the U.S. to shoot itself in the foot. Not as long as people who have a clue have any say about it.

In any case I don't think China or Russia would be very happy to see the US impose itself even further in the M.E. and I don't think even the most rabid Shrubites really want to risk an escalation that could lead to WW3.

Apparently you were posting before seeing the post above yours.

 

[berkeman]

This suggests a third option:
We go in and wreck the place, but we don't stick around to help clean up the mess.

Nice proposal, Warren. Very well thought out and presented. Don't be modest, you've done an excellent job in thinking up a new and intriguing option. Too bad more of the people responding didn't pay attention in English class... Too much Physics, not enough Literature...

You forgot to mention that if the Iranian people go hungry as a result of the blitzkrieg, they can always eat their...

 

[BobG]

It would be interesting if the US attacks Iran and it transpires that the North Koreans or Pakistan have already lent Iran a nuke or two.
In any case I don't think China or Russia would be very happy to see the US impose itself even further in the M.E. and I don't think even the most rabid Shrubites really want to risk an escalation that could lead to WW3.

It wouldn't lead to WW3. The US is too entwined in the world economy for anyone to do anything against the US immediately, even if they could militarily.

It would start a mass exodus of international business with the US towards any country(s) with economic potential plus a 'safer' stance towards the rest of the world. It might take a decade or two, but I think the world would be pretty committed towards reducing its ties to the US.

In the worst case, economic isolation would leave the US as not even the most powerful in the Western Hemisphere (Brazil and Argentina could both improve their economic standing with better government and the right trade agreements).

Most likely case will be much more passive stances by Bush successors (that's likely regardless of whether Bush were to invade Iran or not). Capitalism has one real good thing going for it - businesses don't like leaders that hurt business.

 

[EnumaElish]

Hmm... After the western forces leave, a civil strife begins with no end in sight. A few years pass before a fiercely fundamentalist sect known as the Taliban seize the government in a bloody fight. Osama bin Laden crosses into Iran and establishes a base in the Iranian mountains...

 

[Lisa!]

Eventually, a new government would form. Most likely, the new government would be sullen, but it would not be openly belligerant like it is now. Most likely, they will cooperate, especially if the families of the Iranian POW's ever want to see their husbands and fathers again. If the Americans know anything, it is how to run a prison system. Moreover, Iranian cooperation with the civilized world will be rewarded with reconstruction aid and trade.

Hopefully it wouldn't be like Iraq's situation! Never mind! I forgot that all problems in Iraq is because of Iran meddling.

It would be interesting if the US attacks Iran and it transpires that the North Koreans or Pakistan have already lent Iran a nuke or two.

Nukes weren't in the scenario! Seriously now I hope countries never use nukes against each other.

That film is a discredit to Alexander!

And to answer your question he took persia, and did some bad bad things to some beatiful cities...

Thanks for the information, Anttech!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Nice proposal, Warren. Very well thought out and presented. Don't be modest, you've done an excellent job in thinking up a new and intriguing option. Too bad more of the people responding didn't pay attention in English class... Too much Physics, not enough Literature...
You forgot to mention that if the Iranian people go hungry as a result of the blitzkrieg, they can always eat their...

Thanks for the complement! It was my pleasure. . . .

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The distance from northern Iraq at the Kordestan border to Tehran is 450 km--slightly less than the distance from Kuwait to Baghdad. Thus, by launching the attack from northern Iraq in more or less friendly territory, the worst of the Zagreb mountains is avoided. After the first 50 km or so the ground levels out and it's smooth sailing the rest of the way to Tehran.

Also, since Sunburn missiles only have a range of 100 miles, U.S. aircraft carriers (and oil tankers) could safely navigate the western part of the Gulf assuming that air and sea launch capability would be denied to the Iranians. Only the Strait of Hormuz itself would be directly threatened by shore-launched Sunburns.

In short, an invasion of Iran is eminently feasible.

So, this is how I predict the battle will unfold: three Army divisions will push east into Kordestan and on to Tehran as fast as possible. Meanwhile, a division of light infantry will push west from Afghanistan and skirt the north edge of the Salt Desert to cutoff escape routes into Turkmenistan. In addition, a division of Marines, British elements and an armored division will push east from Basrah. The armored division will bypass Khoramshar and race down the Iranian Gulf coast.

In order to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, an airborne assault near Bandar Abbas will secure suspected Sunburn missile sites. Once the missile sites are secure, the area will be rapidly reinforced by sea-borne Marines. British and Polish forces will make short incursions into Iran along the frontier of central Iraq between the two main prongs and take up defensive positions in the foothills of the Zagreb mountains.

After Tehran is surrounded, at least one division will break off and turn south to link up with the infantry division pushing northeast from Basrah in the vicinity of Kashan and the infamous Natanz nuclear facility. Thus, the population centers of the Zagreb mountains will be bypassed and cutoff from the outside world entirely, at least for the initial phase. The Pakistanis might want to get in the action and take Baluchestan and the Arabian Sea coast for us.

Once Tehran falls, the regular Iranian army will formally surrender. We then quickly install a new government from native Iranian progressives and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (BTW they need to be removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations--they proved their loyalty by exposing the Natanz facility in 2002.) Learning lessons from the Iraq War, we do NOT disband the Iranian army. Rather, we hand control of the regular army over to the new secular democratic government. The Iranian army will then move into the big cities of the Zagrebs to restore order. The Revolutionary Guard will have to be disbanded, but vetted enlisted soldiers will be offered positions in the regular army. The allies then sign a peace treaty with the new government, hand over the POW's then then get out--except for a few advisors of course.

This would be a win-win scenario for all concerned.

 

[Treadstone 71]

Oh ya, that's an air-tight plan. They should make you the secretary of defense.

 

[Treadstone 71]

Once Tehran falls, the regular Iranian army will formally surrender. We then quickly install a new government [...] we do NOT disband the Iranian army. Rather, we hand control of the regular army over to the new secular democratic government.

I love this part the most. And if the Iranian army doesn't surrender? What if there's a mutiny? What if the Iranian army's loyalty doesn't have an "off" button? What are they, drones?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Simple, we kill them.

 

[SOS2008]

<snip>

You obviously have a good military mind. However, you may want to stop staring at your military pieces on the chessboard and start wrapping your head around the big picture (which was originally presented by Art here in PF during debates about the Iraq invasion).

The current scramble to secure energy just might be setting the final stage of the Great Game. The growing ties among Russia, China, and Iran – which some deem the new triangle – will increasingly task the West in accessing the remaining energy supplies, despite its grand plan to integrate pariah countries into an investment-friendly international neighborhood. The U.S., in particular, has blundered by conflating military might with real power – the latter measured more and more by quantifiable energy reserves, or in the case of China, monetary reserves available for energy purchase. The U.S. has also stubbed its toe with its sanctions policy on Iran. Sanctions, of dubious value in a unilateral world, are self-defeating in a multilateral one. Mideast/Asian/Russian investment transactions have never been more entwined. By replacing hostilities with peaceful commercial relations, the region has further marginalized the West.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=8416

Iran to remove funds from Europe in nuclear dispute

21.01.06 1.00pm

TEHRAN, Iran - Embroiled in a nuclear standoff with the West, Iran said today it was moving funds out of Europe to shield them from possible UN sanctions and flexed its oil muscles with a proposal to cut Opec output..

…Financial markets reacted nervously to the uncertainty about Iran's foreign holdings, estimated at more than US$30 billion (NZ$44bn), helping send oil to a four-month high above US$68. US stock prices fell and the dollar dipped against the euro and the safe-haven Swiss franc.

…Flexing its oil muscle, Iran proposed slashing a million barrels a day from Opec production, saying the market was oversupplied. However, Opec is considered unlikely to cut production at a month-end meeting. Most traders are more concerned about a shortage of spare capacity and an array of geopolitical risks.

Iran is the world's fourth biggest oil exporter. Oil revenue, 80 per cent of its export earnings, is expected to exceed US$40 billion in the year to March 2006.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10364757

Almost 70% of the world's international currency reserves—the money that nations use to finance international trade and protect themselves against financial speculators—takes the form of U.S. dollars. The dollar is used for this purpose because it is relatively stable. Because the United States has a major share of world trade and financial assets, certain commodities, in particular oil, are denominated in it. The net result is a large diversified demand for dollars.

The use of the U.S. dollar as an international currency, however, has been declining gradually for over thirty years. In the past several years, this reduction in the share of dollar reserves has accelerated with the decline in the value of the dollar and the rise of the euro as a legitimate contender for reserve currency status. Traditionally, speculation over movements in the dollar's value have focused on technical issues surrounding the sustainable size of the country's current account deficit and the relative attractiveness of U.S. financial markets. While these factors still dominate discussion in the financial press, the scope of the debate has broadened to America's "unilateral approach to foreign affairs," and decisions concerning the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

…Europeans would like to create their own virtuous cycle with the euro linked to oil, allowing international hard currency reserves to flow back into Europe as investment. In addition to reducing the commercial and military power of the United States, many Europeans see the displacement of the dollar by the euro as the international reserve currency ushering in a new era, similar to that associated with the displacement of the pound sterling by the United States dollar following World War II. The EU welcomed President Putin's statement (October 9, 2003) that Russia was considering pricing its crude in euros (petroeuros) rather than dollars.

…a number of commentators have speculated about the likelihood of and consequences of other oil producing countries or even OPEC as a whole also shifting to euro pricing.

One of the best descriptions of this scenario—that the war with Iraq was not so much over oil as it was over the pricing of oil in euros by Saddam Hussein—has been developed by W. Clark:

1. The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in November 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro (17% in 2002).

2. The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq—or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq—is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way. (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran—the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).

3. The effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp

I’ll repeat earlier suggestions.
1) We impeach Bush immediately, sending a clear message to the neocons in his administration and the Pentagon that they can no longer put our country at risk.
2) We begin to work on our outrageous deficit, first scaling back military spending in Iraq, etc., focusing on ways to increase exports of finished goods, and ways for Americans to remain employed with incomes in keeping with cost of living increases.
3) We begin sincere work toward energy diversification and ending dependency on foreign oil.

To the neocon slogan of "Four more wars! Four more wars! Four more wars!" I say NO!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

:!)Hello Cyrus! Good to hear from you again! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments!:!)

You're probably correct that I don't know much about the Middle East, I've only been there twice for a total of 6 months. But I am an amateur student of history. The primary reason the Iraqis didn't perform well in the Iran-Iraq War is that they never achieved air superiority. Secondarily, their armored forces were based on hand-me-down T-72's from the Soviets, and the Iraqi's lacked modern command-and-control structures, not to mention that most of their forces were not highly trained.

The reason the Iranians lost 1 million troops was because the war devolved into a WWI stalemate complete with trench warfare, chemical weapons, and ill-advised human wave attacks, not to mention doing things like handing children little plastic "keys to heaven" and then using them as human mine sweepers, rather than using metal detectors.

The American military on the other hand, suffers from none of the defects plaguing the former Iraqi army. The fact that in the Gulf War the Americans did in 3 days what the Iranians could not do in 8 years of constant battle ought to give one pause. But don't worry, the Iranians will lose far fewer than 1 million troops in the upcoming war.

Why then haven't we invaded Iran for the last 30 years? Probably for the same reason we haven't invaded Cuba for the last 40 years. Mainly because we Americans are nice guys, and only do that sort of thing when absolutely necessary. Like it is now.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Hmmmm, advocating mass homicide (i.e. genocide) is a rather repugnant idea - not to mention exceedingly offensive and seemingly in violation of the forum guidelines.

Well, we are discussing war in this thread. I can't think of a nicer way to put it, although I wish there was. My apologies go out to all who were offended.

However, I must correct you, my friend, on one small point. Killing enemy combatants in a war to enforce UN directives does not count as mass homicide or genocide.

 

[Cyrus]

However, I must correct you, my friend, on one small point. Killing enemy combatants in a war to enforce UN directives does not count as mass homicide or genocide.

Oh, excuse me. So invading a country. Taking out its infrastructure, and packing up and leaving after you did the damage, what do you call that...liberation, freedom giving? I call that being a barbarian. There will be no war with Iran. I want to buy you a ticket to Iraq for 6 months, so you can see the difference between being in a war and reading about it in your books on your soft coutch.

 

[SOS2008]

:!)Hello Cyrus! Good to hear from you again! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments!:!)
You're probably correct that I don't know much about the Middle East, I've only been there twice for a total of 6 months. But I am an amateur student of history. The primary reason the Iraqis didn't perform well in the Iran-Iraq War is that they never achieved air superiority. Secondarily, their armored forces were based on hand-me-down T-72's from the Soviets, and the Iraqi's lacked modern command-and-control structures, not to mention that most of their forces were not highly trained.
The reason the Iranians lost 1 million troops was because the war devolved into a WWI stalemate complete with trench warfare, chemical weapons, and ill-advised human wave attacks, not to mention doing things like handing children little plastic "keys to heaven" and then using them as human mine sweepers, rather than using metal detectors.
The American military on the other hand, suffers from none of the defects plaguing the former Iraqi army. The fact that in the Gulf War the Americans did in 3 days what the Iranians could not do in 8 years of constant battle ought to give one pause. But don't worry, the Iranians will lose far fewer than 1 million troops in the upcoming war.
Why then haven't we invaded Iran for the last 30 years? Probably for the same reason we haven't invaded Cuba for the last 40 years. Mainly because we Americans are nice guys, and only do that sort of thing when absolutely necessary. Like it is now.

I know I have tried to have meaningful discourse with you, yet you remain obsessed with military obliteration, and continue to make unsubstantiated claims such as how the U.S. is the “good guy.” Aside from being offensive, it appears you only want to use this forum for venting. PF is an academic forum in which members read posts and reply to these posts with some real thought—preferably based on research effort.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You obviously have a good military mind.

Gosh, thanks for the complement SOS! And those were some interesting articles that you posted!

I wouldn't worry too much about whether oil at the New York Mercantile Exchange is traded in US dollars or Euros, however. Like the article said, OPEC doesn't have the pull that it used to. Moreover, it's likely that the dollar is too strong now. Switching to euros might be a good thing! It would make US exports cheaper, for one thing. And cheaper dollars make it easier to pay our debt. And now that there's PayPal, doing business in other currencies is no big deal anymore. Those European vacations will sure be expensive though. I guess our friends across the pond will just have to visit us instead.

I did find one part of the article you quoted to be rather disturbing: the part, of course, where William (not Wesley!) Clark made the nasty suggestion that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam switched to the euro! I hope you don't think that yours truly would ever suggest that we invade Iran over something so petty as whether a few barrels of oil should be traded in dollars or not!

 

[SOS2008]

Gosh, thanks for the complement SOS! And those were some interesting articles that you posted!
I wouldn't worry too much about whether oil at the New York Mercantile Exchange is traded in US dollars or Euros, however. Like the article said, OPEC doesn't have the pull that it used to. Moreover, it's likely that the dollar is too strong now. Switching to euros might be a good thing! It would make US exports cheaper, for one thing. And cheaper dollars make it easier to pay our debt. And now that there's PayPal, doing business in other currencies is no big deal anymore. Those European vacations will sure be expensive though. I guess our friends across the pond will just have to visit us instead.
I did find one part of the article you quoted to be rather disturbing: the part, of course, where William (not Wesley!) Clark made the nasty suggestion that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam switched to the euro! I hope you don't think that yours truly would ever suggest that we invade Iran over something so petty as whether a few barrels of oil should be traded in dollars or not!

If you go into that article you will see an extensive bibliography of writings by experts/scholars who support this position, who I am far more likely to listen to than some yahoo on a forum. And did you take any time to notice what site that information was taken from?

About the CCC

The Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC) conducts research on current and emerging security issues and conveys its findings to U.S. and Allied policy-makers and military forces. Launched by the Naval Postgraduate School's Department of National Security Affairs in 2001 and propelled by a seasoned staff with ready access to military and academic circles, the CCC is uniquely positioned to develop security research of high quality and relevance. Through aggressive outreach highlighted by our Regional Security Education Program (RSEP), the CCC ensures that its analyses benefit the makers and executers of U.S. defense policy. Active in the academy and in the field, the CCC bridges the gap between the security researcher and the warfighter to the benefit of both.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/about.asp

Would you please do likewise and provide credible sources for your assertions? Otherwise you are just trolling, and I will ignore you.