Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

The place for general political discussion.

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Medius » Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:53 am

Indy wrote:
The question is whether we could. It is an asinine question. Absolutely we could. We are enormously better equipped for asymmetric warfare than Iran. We just don't have the stomach to execute (which I don't take issue with if we choose peace instead, war-lite doesn't work).


What I'm saying is yes, you're right, we could inflict immense physical damage on Iran but is there any end-game scenario where we'd "win" a conflict?

That's what I'm not seeing. Meaning: from all the warmongers (not you) who keep salivating at the idea of going at Iran and of course scuttling this deal.

And I think we can all concur that Israel would love nothing more than for us to go in and do their dirty work for them, yes?


Yes, but it isn't in our control. For us to win, it would require a clear moral imperative to act (meaning Iran has to do something really bad) and the will to act with overwhelming force (meaning Iran has to do something really, really bad).
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Saz » Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:00 am

Medius wrote:
Indy wrote:
Medius wrote:I thought this latest crazy talk would sort out, but it appears that this is going to be a "real" discussion.

If the US has the stomach for it, we can obliterate Iran. No question. Sorry, I know people want to feel like there is a limitation to the US war machine, but sadly, the limitation isn't quite so small as Iran.

Now, that said, it isn't something we are going to do with just some left-over special forces. A ground invasion would require us to pull out of some areas, mobilize all of our existing reserves, and start some heavy recruiting with some possible draft legislation on the back-burner.

It would not, however, even be close to our mobilization effort for WWII. And unless we really just wanted to be entirely stupid, it wouldn't be the meat-grinder of Vietnam... If we have the stomach for it.

That said, we don't have the stomach for it. The US Citizenry don't want to go to war with Iran. A war with Iran isn't likely to boost army volunteers. It is likely to be fought with just who we have available and as such, would be a bombing war aimed at surrender that would likely go south after the first or tenth elementary school was blown up.


This is nuts. Obliterate them? We just lost over 4,400 people in Iraq--a country that HAD no military after the initial invasion--and you think we could invade a fully functional state in the middle east that is one of the world's experts at asymmetrical warfare and we'll simply "obliterate" them?

Invade them for what, exactly? What is the end game? So we'll occupy them? Or just leave after "obliterating" them?

And now, after turning the Persians against us to go with all the Arabs, the Shiites to go with the Sunnis, we'll have managed to literally turn that entire region against us. Oh, except for Israel. BTW last time I checked Israel doesn't have oil, and to that point, I hope you like oil at $400/bbl and what that would mean for the American economy--because that's where it will go when we invade Iran to "obliterate" them.

People figured out long ago--and Iraq proved it--that you don't take on the U.S. military in a conventional war, you bleed us to death with asymmetrical tactics and insurgencies. I'm also guessing Iran would respond by unleashing its full cyberwar capabilities, which are also world-class.


You need to re-read. I'm not suggesting we should do anything to Iran. The question is whether we could. It is an asinine question. Absolutely we could. We are enormously better equipped for asymmetric warfare than Iran. We just don't have the stomach to execute (which I don't take issue with if we choose peace instead, war-lite doesn't work).

1.) Nukes are the asymmetric trump card and we have them
2.) We can drop conventional bombs that would make a country wish they were being nuked and we have them too
3.) We can send in laser guided missiles safely from the oceans
4.) Drones don't even require danger to pilots and we have those too
5.) We have all the goddamn time in the world because the war isn't on our soil, blowing up our infrastructure

Again though, it would require the people to actually be willing to fight a war the way it needs to be fought. Which requires a pretty good reason to fight. The "situation" with Iran isn't even close to that. The biggest threat, I think, to Iran getting a nuke is Israel immediately attacking and starting off a major conflict in the entire region.


Yea. I would guarantee if Iran got a bomb they wouldn't use it. But if Iran got a bomb, the israelis would be very very likely candidates to use their own, and the crazy f**k saudis would get their own and hand it off to whatever terrorist group is the flavour of the month.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Libertarian602 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:36 pm

Indy wrote:
Medius wrote:I thought this latest crazy talk would sort out, but it appears that this is going to be a "real" discussion.

If the US has the stomach for it, we can obliterate Iran. No question. Sorry, I know people want to feel like there is a limitation to the US war machine, but sadly, the limitation isn't quite so small as Iran.

Now, that said, it isn't something we are going to do with just some left-over special forces. A ground invasion would require us to pull out of some areas, mobilize all of our existing reserves, and start some heavy recruiting with some possible draft legislation on the back-burner.

It would not, however, even be close to our mobilization effort for WWII. And unless we really just wanted to be entirely stupid, it wouldn't be the meat-grinder of Vietnam... If we have the sYou seem to be confused.tomach for it.

That said, we don't have the stomach for it. The US Citizenry don't want to go to war with Iran. A war with Iran isn't likely to boost army volunteers. It is likely to be fought with just who we have available and as such, would be a bombing war aimed at surrender that would likely go south after the first or tenth elementary school was blown up.


This is nuts. Obliterate them? We just lost over 4,400 people in Iraq--a country that HAD no military after the initial invasion--and you think we could invade a fully functional state in the middle east that is one of the world's experts at asymmetrical warfare and we'll simply "obliterate" them?

Invade them for what, exactly? What is the end game? So we'll occupy them? Or just leave after "obliterating" them?

And now, after turning the Persians against us to go with all the Arabs, the Shiites to go with the Sunnis, we'll have managed to literally turn that entire region against us. Oh, except for Israel. BTW last time I checked Israel doesn't have oil, and to that point, I hope you like oil at $400/bbl and what that would mean for the American economy--because that's where it will go when we invade Iran to "obliterate" them.

People figured out long ago--and Iraq proved it--that you don't take on the U.S. military in a conventional war, you bleed us to death with asymmetrical tactics and insurgencies. I'm also guessing Iran would respond by unleashing its full cyberwar capabilities, which are also world-class.


You seem to be very confused. The United States and allies only lost roughly around 174 troops, during the invasion of Iraq. After 8 years of asymmetric warfare, and finally implementing a coherent counter-insurgency strategy, another 4,000 servicemen were lost.

The United States could successfully invade Iran, the actual occupation of Iran would be difficult, but I don't think it would as incompetently implemented as it was in Iraq, in 2003.
I don't advocate for war or the invasion of Iran, but you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.
“Liberty has not only enemies which it conquers, but perfidious friends, who rob the fruits of its victories: Absolute democracy, socialism.”
-Lord Acton
User avatar
Libertarian602
Senator
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:29 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 135 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Indy » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:23 pm

You seem to be very confused. The United States and allies only lost roughly around 174 troops, during the invasion of Iraq. After 8 years of asymmetric warfare, and finally implementing a coherent counter-insurgency strategy, another 4,000 servicemen were lost.


Oh is that all? Thanks for clearing that up.

The United States could successfully invade Iran, the actual occupation of Iran would be difficult, but I don't think it would as incompetently implemented as it was in Iraq, in 2003.
I don't advocate for war or the invasion of Iran, but you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.


Says the guy who claims the U.S. could successfully invade Iran.
User avatar
Indy
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 8547
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:46 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 289 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian Socialist

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby exploited » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:28 pm

Indy wrote:
You seem to be very confused. The United States and allies only lost roughly around 174 troops, during the invasion of Iraq. After 8 years of asymmetric warfare, and finally implementing a coherent counter-insurgency strategy, another 4,000 servicemen were lost.


Oh is that all? Thanks for clearing that up.

The United States could successfully invade Iran, the actual occupation of Iran would be difficult, but I don't think it would as incompetently implemented as it was in Iraq, in 2003.
I don't advocate for war or the invasion of Iran, but you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.


Says the guy who claims the U.S. could successfully invade Iran.


Lol what
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20964
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Philly » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:33 pm

Indy has the worst reading comprehension ever.
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Libertarian602 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:34 pm

Indy wrote:
You seem to be very confused. The United States and allies only lost roughly around 174 troops, during the invasion of Iraq. After 8 years of asymmetric warfare, and finally implementing a coherent counter-insurgency strategy, another 4,000 servicemen were lost.


Oh is that all? Thanks for clearing that up.

The United States could successfully invade Iran, the actual occupation of Iran would be difficult, but I don't think it would as incompetently implemented as it was in Iraq, in 2003.
I don't advocate for war or the invasion of Iran, but you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.


Says the guy who claims the U.S. could successfully invade Iran.

Your observation is correct, I did state the U.S. could successfully invade Iran.

Haha, wow.
“Liberty has not only enemies which it conquers, but perfidious friends, who rob the fruits of its victories: Absolute democracy, socialism.”
-Lord Acton
User avatar
Libertarian602
Senator
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:29 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 135 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Philly » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:45 pm

He's having trouble understanding the difference between "invade" and "occupy". Also "could" and "should".
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Libertarian602 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:50 pm

Better watch out, he might post a picture of Willie Wonka.
“Liberty has not only enemies which it conquers, but perfidious friends, who rob the fruits of its victories: Absolute democracy, socialism.”
-Lord Acton
User avatar
Libertarian602
Senator
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:29 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 135 times
Political Leaning: Libertarian

Re: Why they support the Iran nuclear deal

Postby Philly » Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:03 pm

Libertarian602 wrote:Better watch out, he might post a picture of Willie Wonka.

in which case you'd just have to admit that Iran's borders are impenetrable and concede this debate to him. You can't beat Wonka.
User avatar
Philly
Governor
 
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:36 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 949 times
Been thanked: 1116 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Saz and 3 guests