Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber mbakunin
    Radio Gnome
    23 Oct '12 10:33 / 1 edit
    It seems that both presidential candidates are open to employing military measures vs Iran.

    Iran is a militarised state of 75 million people, capable of one of the largest mobilisations in the WORLD (roughly 1 million). It is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Is it at all plausible that the US could achieve anything militarily? Does the US even have any realistic military options in this case? Considering that a military intervention would probably entail incurring losses in numbers that are unacceptable to the American public.
  2. 23 Oct '12 13:08
    Originally posted by mbakunin
    It seems that both presidential candidates are open to employing military measures vs Iran.

    Iran is a militarised state of 75 million people, capable of one of the largest mobilisations in the WORLD (roughly 1 million). It is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Is it at all plausible that the US could achieve anything militarily? Does the US even have any real ...[text shortened]... would probably entail incurring losses in numbers that are unacceptable to the American public.
    The US seems to think they can sanction the world to do their bidding.

    Whatever.

    All that needs to be done is keep enough nukes to turn the region into the parking lot if Iran uses a nuke. However, after hearing Obama tell Putin that after the election he will have more room to work, my guess is he wants to reduce the number of nukes the US has.
  3. Subscriber mbakunin
    Radio Gnome
    23 Oct '12 13:23
    Iranian security policy has always been geared toward deterrence, and Iranian rhetoric towards Israel is meant for domestic consumption. An Iranian first strike is unlikely.
  4. 23 Oct '12 15:18
    Originally posted by mbakunin
    Iranian security policy has always been geared toward deterrence, and Iranian rhetoric towards Israel is meant for domestic consumption. An Iranian first strike is unlikely.
    Whether it's meant for domestic consumption or not is a moot point. It is broadcast all over the world. I don't agree with using military force against Iran unless they strike us or an ally first. That being said, they have painted themselves into a corner with all of their aggressive posturing.
  5. 23 Oct '12 15:20
    I'm sure the US could take out the professional Iranian army, though it would be costly in terms of both finance and personnel, and it doesn't look like the US could afford this unless it opts for some heavy tax hikes soon. I doubt such an "Iran tax" would go well with the US public.
  6. 23 Oct '12 16:50
    Originally posted by mbakunin
    It seems that both presidential candidates are open to employing military measures vs Iran.

    Iran is a militarised state of 75 million people, capable of one of the largest mobilisations in the WORLD (roughly 1 million). It is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Is it at all plausible that the US could achieve anything militarily? Does the US even have any real ...[text shortened]... would probably entail incurring losses in numbers that are unacceptable to the American public.
    I think basically Israel will do some "surgical striking" at one point, kind of like what they did to Iraq in 1981 - except that Iran probably learned much from that incident.
  7. 23 Oct '12 17:08
    I am sure that if the US used its lances it could easily defeat the Iranian military. I doubt if the taxpayers would be happy about it though.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    23 Oct '12 17:14
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I think basically Israel will do some "surgical striking" at one point, kind of like what they did to Iraq in 1981 - except that Iran probably learned much from that incident.
    Iran's military is sloppy. They are rabble with equipment they don't maintain. It is a result of the military amd political model they use which involves a revolutionary guard unit to keep the national army and populace in line. Kinda like Saddams Iraq or the USSR. They have fallen a long way from their glorious warrior tradition of ancient times.
  9. 23 Oct '12 17:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Iran's military is sloppy. They are rabble with equipment they don't maintain. It is a result of the military amd political model they use which involves a revolutionary guard unit to keep the national army and populace in line. Kinda like Saddams Iraq or the USSR. They have fallen a long way from their glorious warrior tradition of ancient times.
    Where I grew up in the Netherlands they taught us that the gorillas have lost their warrior status king kong one had.
  10. 23 Oct '12 18:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    The US seems to think they can sanction the world to do their bidding.

    Whatever.

    All that needs to be done is keep enough nukes to turn the region into the parking lot if Iran uses a nuke. However, after hearing Obama tell Putin that after the election he will have more room to work, my guess is he wants to reduce the number of nukes the US has.
    Obama's goal per reducing the U.S. nukes is to gradually turn us into a third rate power and then to join the Europeans in world government (gives the result the liberals want and bails out the European financial debacle).
  11. 23 Oct '12 18:59
    Originally posted by CLL53
    Obama's goal per reducing the U.S. nukes is to gradually turn us into a third rate power and then to join the Europeans in world government (gives the result the liberals want and bails out the European financial debacle).
    Why would he want to do that?
  12. 23 Oct '12 19:01
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Why would he want to do that?
    He is a commie. All the worlds worst dictators endorse him.
  13. 23 Oct '12 21:13
    The US? No. We are too busy using our troops as cannon fodder in Afghanistan searching for IEDs and the Taliban who are no threat to our homeland. Nah, Israel will do it. I predict either a flotilla of Iranian "aid" ships will head over to Israeli waters to deliver aid to the Gaza strip etc. Israel boarded the aid ship, and arrested a bunch of people after a fight the last time. The next time the aid ships will be escorted by Iranian surface warships and when Israel tries to stop the ship for inspection there will be an exchange of fire which will ignite a war between the two. The other scenario would be they try to mine and close off the shipping lanes on their Southern border to limit the flow of oil. You'd see some fireworks there as the US and Israel will mandate the oil routes remain open. Even if Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map", they are not about to lob a nuke into their own muslim brothers or their joint religious center in Jerusalem. Iran has been in existence a hell of alot longer the U.S., who are we to dictate when they can establish nuclear power for peaceful purposes? Why must we be the world police while our infrastructure crumbles and our Southern border remains a war zone with smugglers shooting it out with police and border patrol? That's where our troops need to be. The Army Corps of engineers and seabees need to be rebuilding our bridges etc. Just my opinion.
  14. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    23 Oct '12 21:15
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Whether it's meant for domestic consumption or not is a moot point. It is broadcast all over the world. I don't agree with using military force against Iran unless they strike us or an ally first. That being said, they have painted themselves into a corner with all of their aggressive posturing.
    Iran's aggressive posturing... compared to say... the US's....

    Who's invaded more than 15 countries since 1945? Certainly isn't Iran...
  15. Subscriber mbakunin
    Radio Gnome
    25 Oct '12 09:28
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Whether it's meant for domestic consumption or not is a moot point. It is broadcast all over the world. I don't agree with using military force against Iran unless they strike us or an ally first. That being said, they have painted themselves into a corner with all of their aggressive posturing.
    I don't see how that point is moot. If everyone is worried about Iran having nuclear weapons because they think they'll attack Israel, the fact that the Iranian rhetoric is meant for domestic consumption and therefore should not be taken all that seriously is a valid point.