We MUST Stay In Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Iran can’t do jack but get its ass whipped. If the US goes into ass kicking mode instead of “Policeman” mode, Iran would be screwed. We could destroy Iran with half the troops we have in Iraq for god’s sake. Air power alone could damn near finish off their military. An occupation is the hardest part.

I’m not advocating occupying Iran. I’m not advocating keeping troops there to help them with post-war security. I’m not advocating to help them rebuild. I’m advocating kicking their asses so bad they’re left throwing fucking rocks. Destroy their industry, military, and government. Every time they try to rebuild, start over. Until they learn that actions against us are leading to their extinction. That’s a war. Not “security patrolling.”[/quote]

A voice of reason!! This so correct that the libs won’t fathom it, though.

You don’t win by retreating. You don’t win by meeting your enemy on equal terms. You win by taking ground. Take ground, take ground, take ground. We should be constantly advancing! Ignore this fundamental principle of combat and you’ve lost already.

Sloth, another brilliant post!!

42

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Though, Sloth you are off you’re rocker if you think we should go into Iran. I don’t think the government of Iran has anything to do with Iraq.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032

They got caught red handed. They’ve been training and supplying Shiite militias to kill our troops. And possibly some Sunni
militia elements have also been involved.[/quote]

Sloth is right. Iran is one of the major threats in Iraq and one of the major sources of the current conflict. Iran is attempting in influence and control Iraq and then eventually the entire Arabian penninsula. Iran will attempt to mobilize the Iraqi Shite majority, and form the Iraqi Shia into a theocratic government that looks just like Iran’s. The Iranian Ayatollah will be the Imam for both Iran and Iraq. The Iraqi shite president will be controlled by the Ayatollah.

At the same time, Iran is fomenting a Shia vs. Sunni civil war in Lebanon.
After gaining control of Iraq, Iran will declare a jihad on the secular Kuwait and the wahabbist Saudi Arabia, in the name of restoring purity to Islam. Saudi Arabia will attempt to obtain nuclear weapons in order to defend itself, further destabilizing the area.

We must establish a secular government in Iraq, not necessarily democratic, but secular. If we don’t fight Iran, I can see another Iran-Iraq war being fought in the next 10 years, assuming we are successful in Iraq.

43

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Um, no. War is the extension of politics by other means, per Clausewitz. If you didn’t obtain your political goals, you didn’t win. Did we win in Vietnam? We never really lost a battle. Are you this obtuse?

[/quote]

"Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America’s word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.” He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam ? no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America’s word. Within a month of Ford’s last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.

Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these “Jeffersonian Democrats” come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a “clear case of genocide” in Cambodia."

 --- Ann Coulter (a great American)
44

Thing to remember about Iran is that 99% of their population hates their government and is pro-Western. Their government maintains power only through force. We should do everything in our power to foster a revolution there again, because their on the verge.

45

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Thing to remember about Iran is that 99% of their population hates their government and is pro-Western. Their government maintains power only through force. We should do everything in our power to foster a revolution there again, because their on the verge. [/quote]

Yeah, as soon as they reach that critical 99.1% to 0.9% ratio, they’re going for it.

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Um, no. War is the extension of politics by other means, per Clausewitz. If you didn’t obtain your political goals, you didn’t win. Did we win in Vietnam? We never really lost a battle. Are you this obtuse?

Are we talking Vietnam, or Iraq? We’re providing limited security in Iraq, not fighting a war, such as in Vietnam. Do you see us sacking Sadr city with full American fire power? No, we go on damn ‘patrols’…Sorry, but major combat operations have been over for some time now. Snipers, and IED’s are the threats, not some military force pushing our troops to retreat and give up ground. It hasn’t been a war effort for some time now. It’s a security effort. Two totally and completely different approaches. How in the world you can’t see the distinction is beyond me. Are you this obtuse?
[/quote]

Was Vietnam not a war? Was Algeria? Was Afghanistan (either time)? Low-intensity warfare is the dominant form of war in the world today, and has been since 1945. Just because we’re not good at it doesn’t mean we can stick our head in the sand and label it “security operations.”

There are some very smart people (Martin Van Creveld, Bill Lind) who would in fact argue that conventional, hardware-driven military forces are on the verge of being dinosaurs.

[quote]
Nope. We’re losing in Iraq so the solution is to attack Iran? As others have said, that’s absurd. I’m sure Iran’s funding our enemies and quite possibly even has men on the ground in Iraq. Doesn’t change the fact that foreign fighters and foreign money are a very small part of the equation there. The people doing the killing and dying are Iraqis. And in a country where every household has at least one AK-47, Iranian firepower is pretty inconsequential.

As hard as this may be to comprehend, Iran can hurt us a great deal, maybe more than we can hurt them. You think Iraq is bad now, how do you think a full-scale Shia uprising against the US would look? Not to mention the entire oil issue…

Iran can’t do jack but get its ass whipped. If the US goes into ass kicking mode instead of “Policeman” mode, Iran would be screwed. We could destroy Iran with half the troops we have in Iraq for god’s sake. Air power alone could damn near finish off their military. An occupation is the hardest part.

I’m not advocating occupying Iran. I’m not advocating keeping troops there to help them with post-war security. I’m not advocating to help them rebuild. I’m advocating kicking their asses so bad they’re left throwing fucking rocks. Destroy their industry, military, and government. Every time they try to rebuild, start over. Until they learn that actions against us are leading to their extinction. That’s a war. Not “security patrolling.”[/quote]

Airpower worked real well for the Israelis last summer didn’t it? Now Hezbollah is more powerful than ever, and perhaps poised to overthrow the government of Lebanon altogether. Read about the NATO air war over Kosovo sometime. Airpower worked FAR less well than advertised, in fact Slobodan probably lost barely a dozen armored vehicles. The technology has improved since, but I’m still highly skeptical we could cripple Iran with airpower.

And, what exactly is this going to accomplish? As another poster has noted, Iran’s population is young, relatively pro-Western, and sick of their theocracy. So the solution is to bomb them into oblivion and rally them around the flag of a government we’re trying to get rid of?

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Um, no. War is the extension of politics by other means, per Clausewitz. If you didn’t obtain your political goals, you didn’t win. Did we win in Vietnam? We never really lost a battle. Are you this obtuse?

"Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America’s word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.” He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam ? no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America’s word. Within a month of Ford’s last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.

Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these “Jeffersonian Democrats” come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a “clear case of genocide” in Cambodia."

 --- Ann Coulter (a great American)

[/quote]

OK, she refers to Senator Fulbright’s successful effort to cut military aid to South Vietnam. Would American equipment and airpower have been enough to stop the NVA offensive that eventually conquered the country? Maybe. But it’s not cut-and-dried like your favorite moronic scribbler suggests.

48

[quote]BH6 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Though, Sloth you are off you’re rocker if you think we should go into Iran. I don’t think the government of Iran has anything to do with Iraq.

They got caught red handed. They’ve been training and supplying Shiite militias to kill our troops. And possibly some Sunni
militia elements have also been involved.

Sloth is right. Iran is one of the major threats in Iraq and one of the major sources of the current conflict. Iran is attempting in influence and control Iraq and then eventually the entire Arabian penninsula. Iran will attempt to mobilize the Iraqi Shite majority, and form the Iraqi Shia into a theocratic government that looks just like Iran’s. The Iranian Ayatollah will be the Imam for both Iran and Iraq. The Iraqi shite president will be controlled by the Ayatollah.

At the same time, Iran is fomenting a Shia vs. Sunni civil war in Lebanon.
After gaining control of Iraq, Iran will declare a jihad on the secular Kuwait and the wahabbist Saudi Arabia, in the name of restoring purity to Islam. Saudi Arabia will attempt to obtain nuclear weapons in order to defend itself, further destabilizing the area.

We must establish a secular government in Iraq, not necessarily democratic, but secular. If we don’t fight Iran, I can see another Iran-Iraq war being fought in the next 10 years, assuming we are successful in Iraq. [/quote]

OK, but doesn’t it make much more sense to contain Iran with our military power and regional allies than to launch another ill-considered war of choice?

49

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Thing to remember about Iran is that 99% of their population hates their government and is pro-Western. Their government maintains power only through force. We should do everything in our power to foster a revolution there again, because their on the verge. [/quote]

They’ll greet us as liberators!!! w00t!!!

50

Reading a thread like this makes me think we have some power mad factions that are simply out of control.

Crush the world… woohoo… party!!!

At least try to reign in the fear and superiority complex, just a little bit, okay?

51

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Read about the NATO air war over Kosovo sometime. Airpower worked FAR less well than advertised, in fact Slobodan probably lost barely a dozen armored vehicles. The technology has improved since, but I’m still highly skeptical we could cripple Iran with airpower.[/quote]

Airpower works pretty well to get rid of industry and support infrastructures. Armored vehicles won’t help you much if all the bridges in the country are gone. Probably not as much a factor in Iran as in Kosovo, but still…

If you want to take control, you need to occupy and that can’t be done with air power.

If you just want to destroy industry and set them back in their quest for WMDs, destroying every power plant, water treatment plant, refinery, steel processing plant, road, bridges, airports, ports, etc. works wonders.

Look at Shock & Awe. That part went very well. It’s the “securing the country” part that came afterwards that fell apart.

52

[quote]pookie wrote:
If you just want to destroy industry and set them back in their quest for WMDs, destroying every power plant, water treatment plant, refinery, steel processing plant, road, bridges, airports, ports, etc. works wonders.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, the starving and dying populations that are left behind will breed generations of people willing to die for a chance to strike back.

Wow, that would be a much nicer world than the one we live in today!

Sigh, not only in the country attacked, but in most of the neighboring countries. I realize there is already a lot of that, but there is still a huge population of moderates over there.

Eliminating the ability of these people to get educated, to rise above simple hatreds, just doesn’t seem like a good long term plan.

I think someone somewhere should realize that the desired outcome is not to live in a state of perpetual hatred and war… and perhaps work towards some long term resolutions.

However, at some point there would actually have to be a dialogue (more so than writing little FOAD notes on bombs). We all know THAT won’t happen!

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
Unfortunately, the starving and dying populations that are left behind will breed generations of people willing to die for a chance to strike back.[/quote]

When you’re the third generation to get bombed back to the stone age, don’t you eventually think that, maybe, just maybe you’d be better off working with the world community to establish a lasting peace?

Japan and Germany got their asses handed to them in WWII, and they didn’t wait a generation to get their revenge. By that time, their economies had been sufficiently rebuilt for them to have no desire to engage in war (that, and the treaties they signed prevented them from having armies…)

I don’t see why a similar plan couldn’t be made to work with other countries. You want to stop the bombs, fine. You sign this paper guaranteeing foreign aid and technology in rebuilding the country BUT you forego any weapon and military buildup for 50 years.

54

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Was Vietnam not a war? Was Algeria? Was Afghanistan (either time)? Low-intensity warfare is the dominant form of war in the world today, and has been since 1945. Just because we’re not good at it doesn’t mean we can stick our head in the sand and label it “security operations.”
[/quote]

Basically, just reread my last response to you.

ok

Actually, air power did an excellent job for them. Too bad they screwed the pooch on the ground war. Oh, and yes Hezbollah is more powerful than ever…Thanks UN, and the international community! Thanks for putting so much damn pressure on Israel to allow the Hezbos a refuge. Thanks for guarding the Hezbos against Israel so they can freely rearm, via Iran, without fear of reprisal.

yep, it has improved. But, I didn’t say airpower alone we would be ALL that was required.

They can feel free to install their own secular government once we’ve removed the present one. Don’t ask us to stay our hand if they won’t throw out the bastards themselves. Not when those very same bastards are actively killing our troops, and exporting terrorism.

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
HeadHunter has a pathetic black/white view of the world. He’s a dumb redneck. He should do everyone a favor and shut the f*ck up.

Another genius who doesn’t address issues. At least Beowolf is trying.

I may be a black/white guy but you are lost in a gray fog.

[/quote]

I love how you DON’T address the only guy you claim is trying to address the issues.

Heh…

56

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Unfortunately, the starving and dying populations that are left behind will breed generations of people willing to die for a chance to strike back.

When you’re the third generation to get bombed back to the stone age, don’t you eventually think that, maybe, just maybe you’d be better off working with the world community to establish a lasting peace?

Japan and Germany got their asses handed to them in WWII, and they didn’t wait a generation to get their revenge. By that time, their economies had been sufficiently rebuilt for them to have no desire to engage in war (that, and the treaties they signed prevented them from having armies…)

I don’t see why a similar plan couldn’t be made to work with other countries. You want to stop the bombs, fine. You sign this paper guaranteeing foreign aid and technology in rebuilding the country BUT you forego any weapon and military buildup for 50 years.
[/quote]

Japan and Germany also have had foreign troops on their soil from 1945 to the present, largely to protect them from a mutual enemy. To compare their experience (not to mention that both were Western countries) to an ongoing bombardment of Iran is kind of silly.

57

[quote]

OK, but doesn’t it make much more sense to contain Iran with our military power and regional allies than to launch another ill-considered war of choice?[/quote]

Absolutely. We don’t need to invade all of Iran. I would say that initially we would have to occupy a good portion of the land along the Strait of Hormuz. That is where Iran can do the most damage. But, by attacking shipping in the Strait, Iran makes itself more of a problem for the entire world. Perhaps we can isolate Iran to the point they attack us, launching Silkworm missles at our ships and blocking the Strait. We invade the coastal areas while pushing for UN action to get the entire Iranian coast declared a Demilitarized Zone, in the interest of protecting the world’s access to the areas energy sources. International observers will maintain the integrity of the DMZ, Iran will be able to use it’s coast for peaceful purposes only, and we get to further isolate and contain.
During the campaign to take the coastal areas, we also bomb the ever living crap out of thier nuclear facilities and national infrastructure.
I’m not too sold on the Iranian population sponaneously establishing their own secular government. At least, they won’t establish a democracy. The mullahs have too much control over the society and it is going to take a religious war to over throw them. Of course, that type of religious civil war will work in our favor by weakening the entire country.

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Was Vietnam not a war? Was Algeria? Was Afghanistan (either time)? Low-intensity warfare is the dominant form of war in the world today, and has been since 1945. Just because we’re not good at it doesn’t mean we can stick our head in the sand and label it “security operations.”

Basically, just reread my last response to you.
[/quote]

OK, so can you explain why Vietnam was a war and Iraq today isn’t? What’s Afghanistan today then, is that a war? Was it a war when the Soviets were fighting the mujahideen instead of us? I’m confused.

Israel didn’t stop its offensive due to international pressure. The Israelis don’t listen to international pressure (aside from American, but we foolishly gave them a free hand), and never have. And the air war was not a success, Hezbollah lost some of their missiles, but not enough to prevent them from a steady stream of attacks the whole time. Meantime they gave Israel a bloody fight on the ground. There’s a reason the Israelis sacked Dan Halutz, the Chief of Staff (hint: an air force guy).

Ever heard of rally round the flag? How on earth would be removing their government by bombing it?

59

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

OK, so can you explain why Vietnam was a war and Iraq today isn’t? What’s Afghanistan today then, is that a war? Was it a war when the Soviets were fighting the mujahideen instead of us? I’m confused.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re confused about. We are not at war with Iraq. If fact, we temper our actions in accordance to what the Iraqi Government is prepared to do. Do you see us treating Sadr City as the legit military target that it is? And yes it, as it is the base of operations for Sadr’s militia. We conduct swat like raids and patrols instead of pummeling Sadr city in submission, or destruction.

Yes, they did.

The same Americans that were being shat upon by the International community for Israel’s actions? You don’t think that had any effect as to why Israel agreed to allow the UN to come in? Allowing the UN in was the foolish part, by the way.

Actually, they lost a rather large number, in a rather short time. Again, too bad they held back on the ground offensive so long, as I stated earlier. Now, if only Israel would have kept it up and chased their asses to Iran. Instead, the UN protects Hezbo so they can reequip in peace.

Now you know that you’re trying to mislead. Dan Halutz at the time was the chief of staff of the IDF, and not the Air force. You also know he wasn’t sacked because of the air campaign. The biggest criticisms he had to face was 1) Why were ground forces held back, and when used, only tacitly? 2)He faced an investment scandal that led many to call for his resignation.

[quote]
Ever heard of rally round the flag? How on earth would be removing their government by bombing it?[/quote]

Ever heard of fighting against those who are ACTIVELY engaging in acts of war against us? Iran is helping to kill our troops. I’ll say it again…Iran is helping to kill our troops. I don’t care what they rally around afterwards, as long as they realize that fighting us isn’t going to ever work. That is unless they want to eat dirt for the next couple of generations. They don’t want to remove their terrorism exporting, US troop killing, theocratic leadership? Than fuck them and their future generations.

How about rallying around OUR flag, and take out the bastards helping to kill OUR troops? It’s an absolute national disgrace that our fighting men haven’t been avenged yet. Damn I’m glad we didn’t entertain these kind of excuses during WW2. “What if we kill thousands of German citizens???” “What if they rally around their flag???” Than they’ll die too, so long as we win. Why is the West so bent on defeating it’s own self?

60

[quote]BH6 wrote:

OK, but doesn’t it make much more sense to contain Iran with our military power and regional allies than to launch another ill-considered war of choice?

Absolutely. We don’t need to invade all of Iran. I would say that initially we would have to occupy a good portion of the land along the Strait of Hormuz. That is where Iran can do the most damage. But, by attacking shipping in the Strait, Iran makes itself more of a problem for the entire world. Perhaps we can isolate Iran to the point they attack us, launching Silkworm missles at our ships and blocking the Strait. We invade the coastal areas while pushing for UN action to get the entire Iranian coast declared a Demilitarized Zone, in the interest of protecting the world’s access to the areas energy sources. International observers will maintain the integrity of the DMZ, Iran will be able to use it’s coast for peaceful purposes only, and we get to further isolate and contain.
During the campaign to take the coastal areas, we also bomb the ever living crap out of thier nuclear facilities and national infrastructure.
I’m not too sold on the Iranian population sponaneously establishing their own secular government. At least, they won’t establish a democracy. The mullahs have too much control over the society and it is going to take a religious war to over throw them. Of course, that type of religious civil war will work in our favor by weakening the entire country. [/quote]

Doesn’t the whole “creative destruction” thing look a little suspect to you after the last three years?

Also, can’t see Russia or, especially, China, ever not vetoing an invasion of Iran, coastal or otherwise. They’re likely to veto sanctions, which are just a little less drastic.

I still fail to understand why armed containtment, whether from Iraq or the Gulf States, isn’t a much better idea than a needless war.

Good article on this from a while back, by an Israeli military historian you may have read (although apparently his book on the Wehrmacht is no longer part of the curriculum at the Marine Corps Command and Staff School at Quantico):
http://www.defense-and-society.org/creveld/to_bomb_iran.htm