Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 121K
  • Politics 
RaiGuy said:
Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.
Click to expand...
There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.
 
ZenMode said:
Terrorists are very resourceful.
Click to expand...
Actually, most of them aren't. If they were, we'd be in much bigger doodoo than we are.

But more importantly, the problem with that ridiculous meme (aside from being a virtual replica of Iraq War propaganda) is science, not terrorists.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.
Click to expand...
Once we bomb
All bets are off on what happens next
 
superrific said:
Well maybe Lower Manhattan wouldn't be the right target. Or maybe I'm just full of shit about this. It seems plausible that the reaction to a dirty bomb would be less than the reaction to a nuke (if for no other reason than to disincentivize nuke production), but plausible isn't the same as true.
Click to expand...
I misread your original post, I guess a dirty bomb isn't a nuke, but I think any type of bomb (whatever it's called) that released radioactive material that caused lower Manhattan to be shut down would be met with massive reprisal. Maybe not turn Iran into glass, but pretty fucking severe...
 
ZZLPHeels said:
There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.
Click to expand...
There are bases all over the middle east within striking range of Iran. There are embassies all over the middle east within striking range of terrorists with passports. There are shipping lanes, Straits of Hormuz, that will soon have military vessels, potentially at risk of mines, etc. And there are American tourists everywhere.
 
ZenMode said:
Terrorists are very resourceful.
Click to expand...
Again, what is to keep them from being destructive to America even if Iran's own facilities are incapacitated. We know they're somewhat advanced in cyber-warfare. 9/11 showed us that it doesn't take much to inflict harm.

What's the end game after we're done dropping bombs and shooting missiles (however long that takes)? We tried regime change in Iraq and that gave us Isis. We're still in Iraq. We basically stalemated with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran is TWICE as large as Afghanistan.
 
Huh? said:
This is a well-reasoned post and it's a logical conclusion not to bomb, even if I disagree with said conclusion. It is not an easy call, made more difficult because I do not have faith in the current US or Israeli governments to make the right decisions going forward.

Please permit me to respond with my own pros and cons list:

Pros:
- Kick the can down the road 5 to 10 years
- Make the costs of reinstituting the nuclear program high enough so that the Iranian mullahs don't reinvest. They have other bigger problems right now.
- Create a precedent to provide a disincentive for other countries contemplating their own nuclear weapons programs
- I believe that Fordow is not in a populated area and we can therefore minimize civilian deaths, but I don't know that for a fact.
- Bring the current military action and suffering to a conclusion. If there's no nuclear program, there is no reason for Israel to bomb.
Click to expand...

Regarding this one, i think it's a stretch:
"Bring the current military action and suffering to a conclusion. If there's no nuclear program, there is no reason for Israel to bomb."
I don't trust Israel to stop. Hell, our intel suggests there isn't much nuke threat right now. So Israel could simply be attacking for non-nuke reasons (regime change, to keep a certain party in power, etc). We don't know why they're doing what they're doing.

Regarding this one:
"Make the costs of reinstituting the nuclear program high enough so that the Iranian mullahs don't reinvest. They have other bigger problems right now."

This doesn't mean they won't still sponsor terrorism. It takes nukes off the table, but there are millions of other terror threats which we wouldn't alter via a big bomb alone - cyberwarfare, mines in the Straits of Hormuz, embassies to attack. Iran is a huge country, we don't want to piss them off long-term.
 
gregh1 said:
We tried regime change in Iraq and that gave us Isis.
Click to expand...
I guess the hope is that the relatively youthful population of Iran is tired of fundamentalist Islamic rule and will be receptive to regime change and maybe helpful in making it happen. At least that's what I recall hearing about for some time now...
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
The world? The world had Iran's program contained. TRUMP should never have let Iran get this far, though in truth there's no way to prevent them from getting a nuke one way or another.
Click to expand...
I could envision a scenario where North Korea or Russia gives Iran a single nuke for the purpose of controlled detonation and then Iran announcing to the world “we have a nuke and more where that came from so fuck off”. And then they just sit back secure in the knowledge that world thinks it has nukes, but really does not.
 
dukeman92 said:
Israel should have considered that before starting a war.
Click to expand...

Israel did consider that. They have undoubtedly tried to bring us into this action. The question now is whether the spectacular success of their operation has changed the landscape so that is in the strategic interests of the US to take out Fordow.

You can disapprove of Israel's intentions while at the same time taking advantage of the opportunity now presented.
 
Chuck Todd (on CNN) said his sources have indicated Trump is waiting on assurances that a US bomb attack would be successful.
 
dukeman92 said:
Spectacular success... so successful that they need us to finish it. No thanks.
Click to expand...
I'll give Israel this: If they came to Trump with a proposal that if they crippled Hezbollah, got rid of Assad, and took out Iran's senior military leadership, will you (Trump) drop a couple of bunker busters on their nuclear facility, I'd say they delivered on their side of the bargain...
 
Saw interview today on CNN with Barak Ravid of Axios erc who said it has become a race of what holds up longer: Israel's supply of intervept missiles vs Irtanian launders and ballistic missiles. He saeem ed to suggest that the outcome is up in air and Isreal could potentially run out and be defgenseless.
I think both sides need a 2 week ceasfire. In Israel's case it would allow them to replenish their intercecp missile supply and allow time for more US military assets to get into region and thus can help more with intercepts as welll. When this happened last year, US had more miitary asssets in the region so fewer missiles got rhough.
 
RaiGuy said:
They might not shoot down that plane, but if the US gets involved, it will put all our troops that are in based in the Middle East in danger.
Click to expand...
and it would put the entire western world, america in particular, at a heightened risk of retaliatory terror attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top