Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:37 am

Wow, and we wonder why the USofA is so far from the Nation it was that won World War II. Bush says he was afraid that Iran would strike US targest in AFG and Iraq, screw with the shippiing lanes in Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea, whichever side of Allah you are on, and then most importantly was the belief that the IAF could not have hit all of the Iran nuclear targets in a single strike regardless of how many multiple aircraft used, before Iran had enough time to escalate the situation and turn it into a full scale war.

With the way Iran can manipulate the US and the UN over their nuclear ambitions, combined with the saturation of liberal pacifists in the US, throw in a 1 trillion USD economic failure and wow, dare I say the USofA is no longer a Super Power? (implying that there are no longer any current world super powers)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080926/ts_nm/us_israel_irannews
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:04 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Wow, and we wonder why the USofA is so far from the Nation it was that won World War II. Bush says he was afraid that Iran would strike US targest in AFG and Iraq, screw with the shippiing lanes in Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea, whichever side of Allah you are on, and then most importantly was the belief that the IAF could not have hit all of the Iran nuclear targets in a single strike regardless of how many multiple aircraft used, before Iran had enough time to escalate the situation and turn it into a full scale war.

With the way Iran can manipulate the US and the UN over their nuclear ambitions, combined with the saturation of liberal pacifists in the US, throw in a 1 trillion USD economic failure and wow, dare I say the USofA is no longer a Super Power? (implying that there are no longer any current world super powers)

I wouldn't exactly go that far. My guess is the reason he didnt want the Iranian war is because the war in Iraq is so un-popular here. It has nothing to do with military power, he is actually using his head on this one. Iran is still a few years away from making an actual nuclear bomb, I dont think we are at the military stage yet I think they are right in giving it some time to work out politically. Remember its not only the US and Israel I doubt the Russians want to see a nuclear armed Iran on their back door either. Iran is not manipulating anything The IAF could not have hit all the sites they dont have the range, only the US could provide enough airpower to substain a bombing campaign on those sites. Israel may hit a few but they wont get them all. To many uncertainties there. This was actually a good call on Bush's part. If he were to underestimate US forces then thats his problem, I believe he would find out quickly enough about military power.

One other thing to keep in mind other than the ruling political party of Iran the Majority of their people have always supported having political and business ties with the US and the rest of the western world. Nut job will eventually get voted out.

[Edited 2008-09-26 00:06:51]

[Edited 2008-09-26 00:09:32]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:07 am

First, Bush didn't say he was afraid of Iranian retalitation, he is concerned about it, but not afraid. Second, he is right, Israel cannot take out all of the Iranian nuclear facilities with just one strike, at least not without USAF tanker support.

Also look at the source of this story, the London Guardian, not exactly a newspaper that is considered friendly to President Bush. The Guardain quotes "senior diplomatic sources who work for a European head of government".

How would that source know?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am

The US cannot get involved in this, as Iran would not simply let it go at either a single or series of airstrikes - there would be retaliation, and all of a sudden you have involvement in three countries next to each other in the region.

A war in Iran would do nothing to help Iraq or Afghanistan.

Also, I don't think the proof is there yet to support any form of military action.

[Edited 2008-09-26 03:50:50]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:54 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
With the way Iran can manipulate the US and the UN over their nuclear ambitions, combined with the saturation of liberal pacifists in the US, throw in a 1 trillion USD economic failure and wow, dare I say the USofA is no longer a Super Power? (implying that there are no longer any current world super powers)

Depends if you only count the weapons / spending on weapons or also economical power / financial independency, domestic industrial power, ethical authority, natural resources, turnover, populations etc..
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:10 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 3):
A war in Iran would do nothing to help Iraq or Afghanistan.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz while parts of Congress are trying to close down Wall St might not be too clever??
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:43 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Closing the Strait of Hormuz while parts of Congress are trying to close down Wall St might not be too clever??

Conversation to be overheard at a USN veterans gathering in 30 years from now:

"Remember when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz?

Yeah, those were a scary 5 minutes"


LY744.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting LY744 (Reply 6):

Conversation to be overheard at a USN veterans gathering in 30 years from now:

"Remember when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz?

Yeah, those were a scary 5 minutes"

Not the place to be too gung ho. Maybe, but what if maybe not???? Are you that sure?

I suppose there have been no military surprises in the past 8 years, so you are probably right.
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9265
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:23 pm

Dubya will probably let the Israelis do the dirty work...
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:40 pm

The correspondent of that paper is a serious journalist, the story is from decent sources, it won't do to keep on de-crying sources that are actually moderate politically, well moderate by most standards, if they don't bend to a particular, very narrow worldview.

Those who say 'why wasn't it done', how about the US and Allies having more than enough on their plate right now.
Iraq looks better, still lots of forces there though, Afghanistan is more serious, so throwing fuel on the fire is a good thing?
I bet those out there don't think so.

If some in the US want to potentially up the ante even more, with the strains the forces are under, well campaign for the draft to return, and the tax $ hike to pay for it.
No?

In any case, likely the pragmatic SecDef Gates had a hand is influencing Bush.
Good job Rumsfeld wasn't still there, with all that 'genius' caused. His superb thinking on Afghanistan in 2001/02 and his ideas about how Iraq should be handled.
Good to see the duck shooting 'Warrior' Cheney was likely ignored too.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:13 pm

KC135Topboom

The phase "head of Govt" rather than "head of state" could be relevant.

Gordon Brown is HOG and the Queen is HOS.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:41 pm

Any Israeli airstrikes would have to cross US-occupied Iraq. Therefore, any Israeli strike would appear defacto US-supported and would politically amount to having US bombers over Iran.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:20 pm

What happened to "Europe taking the lead" on Iran?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:59 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 12):
What happened to "Europe taking the lead" on Iran?

Why does 'taking the lead' always seem to come down to overt threats or action in some peoples books? European diplomacy is, and pretty much always has been, very low key and out of the spotlight.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:16 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 13):
Why does 'taking the lead' always seem to come down to overt threats or action in some peoples books? European diplomacy is, and pretty much always has been, very low key and out of the spotlight.

and ineffective.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10991
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:32 am

The main point is probably how many casualities the US is willing to be responsible for in states who wil be affected by the strikes. The US Airforce could not prevent the launch of scuds into Israel during Gulf War I, and they had just as much radar coverage and more a/c in theater than they do now, so the reality is that there will be fallout, Iran has many more than Iraq and will be able to launch counterstrikes at who knows how many Gulf States.

In my mind that is the main reason for hesitation, the US is not too popular in the region, and most states even if not supporters of Iran would rather have the status quo over some missiles falling on their territory wrecking havoc, and I am not talking about nuclear weapons.
When more states in the region complain or Iran is close to producing its bomb, the odds will change and something may get done, either military action will have to be taken or the world accepts another North Korea, did anyone really believe that they would stop production, Iran is no Libya, there will be no political settlement.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:45 am

The US, at least those in the administration not gagging for another war, have supported the EU diplomacy on Iran, for the simple reason the US just cannot do it, having no diplomatic presence.

Given how totally wrong the ultra hawks were on Iraq, I'd say good job they are not being listened to in this instance, remember them?
The Iraqi's will lay flowers at the feet of the US troops. Saddam has an array of WMD's ready to go. The Northern Alliance will get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, since we are paying them to. We can pull back from Afghanistan to do Iraq with no consequences.
People like Douglas Feith, or as US Commander Tommy Franks called him, the stupidest motherfucker in the world.

Yes, their record has been less than stellar. About time that those basing their thoughts on intel, pragmatism, not ideological fantasy, were listened to.

Iran is nowhere near as frightened of the US, as these people in the US are of Iran.
Rather like the stereotype of the elephant and the mouse (A Republican elephant perhaps?)
They will have considered the possibility of an attack, US or just US approved.
And how they will respond, which they would.
With a major expansion of terrorist activity, against US and Allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as elsewhere in the world, quite possibly including the US.

It's most unlikely that an Israeli attack would even succeed in it's stated aims, this is not Iraq in 1981, just one reactor above ground. Iran has taken this into account.
Anyway, the Israeli AF did not achieve much against it's far less sophisticated enemies in Lebanon in 2006. That was, according to opinion in Israel, an extremely botched operation.
By a weak Israeli PM in a lot of trouble at home, the same one, now recently gone mired in scandal, who wanted to attack Iran.
The Neocon elements in the US loudly denied this for quite sometime afterwards, saying it had been a great success, until it became clear that was not what most in Israel came to realise, with inquiries and sackings of senior staffers.

And consider the consequences of another conflict in the Mid East, on oil, on the economy (which is going ever so well for the US now, right?)

The regime in Iran, a complex network of competing interests, is in serious domestic trouble. What do you really think is behind much of their posturing?
If there is one thing that would cement the most problematic elements of the regime in power, it's an attack from outside.
Being attacked by another foreign power does that to governments and their relationship with those they rule.
I guess many in the US have never got that.

That Iran is more powerful now, has expanded it's influence, is largely down to the polices of the current US administration.
They did not intend this, but that's how careless they've been.

Though the West does agree on the undesirability of an Iranian bomb (no matter what some in the US claim on this), in practical terms it would hardly stack up against the Israeli nuclear force, much less that of the US, or the UK or France for that matter.

Indeed, the then French President, made an extremely frank speech to his own nuclear force on a visit to the SSBN base, in 2006.
Pointing out that any nuclear material, from either a 'dirty bomb' or an explosion, can be traced to the particular reactor. So if any state allowed terrorists access to the material to make this possible, they would be treated the same as if they themselves had launched an attack. With the clear implication of a nuclear response.
This quite extraordinary admission, (the policy for a British PM would be the same, but it's hard to imagine one usually saying so in public), was seen at the time as also being a response to Iranian intransigence and bad faith with the EU diplomatic efforts.

That might not chime with certain stereotypes with some across the pond, but again, they've not exactly been right about too much in recent years.

I note the US efforts with North Korea, which has continued even after they carried on with their programme culminating in a test, remember that?
So why did the US not go in with all guns blazing there?
After all, it is in many ways a more dangerous regime.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:00 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
Anyway, the Israeli AF did not achieve much against it's far less sophisticated enemies in Lebanon in 2006. That was, according to opinion in Israel, an extremely botched operation.

The only area where the IDF/AF did not enjoy full success in Lebanon 2.0 was cooperation with the ground forces (botched medevac flights etc.). Everything else was performed surprisingly well, especially with the IDF ground forces' incredible display of ineptitude as a backdrop. The Night of the Long Range Rockets should have cemented the AF's SF Battalion's place in world special ops history. Perhaps it would have been more impressive if the AF didn't run out of targets within the first week of fighting, but, like it or not, it delivered.


LY744.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:58 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
People like Douglas Feith, or as US Commander Tommy Franks called him, the stupidest motherfucker in the world.

Oh you make my day, GDB. Did not know it was recorded for posterity.

Nice to know that Lebanon 2.0 was a(nother) glorious victory.
 
hunterson
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:02 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:11 am

How about the simple question of TIMING ?!!!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:20 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 14):
and ineffective.

Yeah, charging in all manly like is certainly effective - when is the killing expected to stop in Iraq or Afghanistan again?
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:05 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Nice to know that Lebanon 2.0 was a(nother) glorious victory.

THAT I'd like to hear more about.


LY744.
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:58 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
The US, at least those in the administration not gagging for another war, have supported the EU diplomacy on Iran, for the simple reason the US just cannot do it, having no diplomatic presence

Great post!
 
trex8
Posts: 5718
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:44 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The Guardain quotes "senior diplomatic sources who work for a European head of government".

How would that source know?

can you spell British Foreign Office and Gordon Browns government and ruling Labour party?After all the Guardian is considered by some on the far right in the UK to be Labours partys semi official mouth piece.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:00 pm

LY744, 'Lebanon 2.0', (could we perhaps re-number it with the estimated civilian casualties instead?), caused a political shit-storm in Israel.
Within the military as well as political establishment.
The reason for it's limited success, was that Hezbollah anticipated this response.
In fact it's what they wanted, no matter how many casualties they took, after all, plenty more where they came from.

Military force has always to be the last resort.
Even if it achieves it's aims, that it is resorted to is a failure in itself.
No surprise then that democracies tend not to go to war with each other.

Afghanistan had to be, has to be done, but use of force is not the answer there, stable government and development is.
That is, creating an envirrment where extremism withers, not flourishes.
Iraq did not have to be, since that tin pot thug in Baghdad, was boxed in and enfeebled.
(As for the moral case, understood, but how about Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma too then?)

Iran is a nation of 70 million, with a larger than usual portion of them being young.
Many of them want the freedom's that they get a glimpse of outside, who resent the strictures of the Mullahs.
But never mistake that for a call for an outside force to go in bombing, if we've learnt (or re-learnt), anything from Iraq, that is it.
These people will make up the next generation of leadership, some will be like the current bunch in charge, plenty more won't be however.

The current mouthpiece representing them on the world stage, is an incompetent, elected to do something about the very real poverty and corruption in what should be one of the great nations of the world. With their history, culture and let's face it, oil.
He has singly failed to do anything about what he was elected to address, in fact he's made it worse.
Iran is not in a shooting war, but it has power shortages, oil shortages, that's rather like living in New Zealand and being short of lamb and wool.

This regime came to being through a revolution, one spearheaded largely by the youth.
The beneficiaries were to be a new form of political Islam-ism, it could have the communists, but it wasn't.
They will fear this thirst for more openness, they will likely try to suppress it, thus making it worse.
Until one day..........

Start bombing them and Iran goes from maybe staying closed and hostile for another generation, to definately being that way.

The only reason to attack Iran is if they did or tried to do something so monumentally stupid they became a clear and present threat to the region and ultimately the world.
Them unfortunately getting a basic bomb and a limited delivery capability, is not one of them.
If they used it, or helped others to use it, the regime signs it's own death warrant.
They will note however, that Iraq without nukes was attacked, but North Korea potentially with them, was not. All three named in the notorious Axis Of Evil speech by Bush in 2002.

Yes they are sponsoring terrorism, that has taken the lives of US and British and other Allied service personnel.
And of course, their proxies in Lebanon.
The response here is to catch those responsible, put them on trial and embarrass Iran.
Iran wants, needs, foreign investment, the actions of the harder-line elements in Iran are actively preventing this.

If border flare ups, or stunts by the Revolutionary Guards, leads to a skirmish, so be it.
But that is not a signal to start with Downtown Tehran style missions.
Because the actions of the Revolutionary Guards are a roadblock to that investment and more openness to the world posture Iran needs.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:54 pm



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 8):

Did you totally miss the point of this thread?  Yeah sure
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:26 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
The US, at least those in the administration not gagging for another war, have supported the EU diplomacy on Iran, for the simple reason the US just cannot do it, having no diplomatic presence.

etc etc.

 checkmark  You beat me to it (more or less). Great post, I agree with you 100%, and also your subsequent. No need for anyone to be a cowboy here. That sort of behaviour has landed the US (and by extension us, all Westerners) where we are today. Feith in particular, but also honours to Rummy, Wolfy, Cheney, and the ever evil Richard Pearle. Bush was just likely the mouthpiece once he'd been talked into it.

Even if Iran were to develop a fairly crude bomb, it really wouldn't make much of a difference given the size of Israel's arsenal and the relative (one must expect) accuracy of their Jericho 2 missiles. Having such a weapon and actually using it are two different things. (See my posts in this thread from Non-Av: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo.../non_aviation/read.main/1974332/), Pakistan and India, who have some history, have learned to co-exist to some degree.

Iran, moreover, with Russian VVER reactors shortly to start up, actually have a legitimate right to enrich uranium, in order to make fuel for the plants at Bushehr. Otherwise they're beholden to others for fuel. Enrichment up to in the range of 4-4.5% would be consistent with the VVER reactors.

OTOH, India is now being brought into the NSG with the assistance of Bush et al, despite using power reactors to breed Pu for their weapons program (reactors we helped them build, to be accurate). They are in essence being rewarded for developing nukes, because it's in the business interest of American companies to do so -- or at least they think it's in their interest. We'll see what they think when Tata cars are prowling American streets.

But back to Iran. Mr A is trying to use the nuclear topic and the threat of foreign interference or attack to divert public attention from the shambles the Iranian economy has become under his time in office. Per GDB, the more senior levels of the Iranian hierarchy are tiring of this and with elections looming, will no doubt discreetly try to 'ease' him out of office. Unless Azeri or Baluchi 'terrorists' (the Baluchis apparently being assisted by the US) get to him first.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
First, Bush didn't say he was afraid of Iranian retalitation, he is concerned about it, but not afraid. Second, he is right, Israel cannot take out all of the Iranian nuclear facilities with just one strike, at least not without USAF tanker support.

Pretty sure the IDF have their own tanker support, converted 707s. I think around 7 or 8 plus KC-130Hs. Reference buried in article: http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...ilitary-calculations-towards-iran/
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:02 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 9):
Those who say 'why wasn't it done', how about the US and Allies having more than enough on their plate right now.

Exactly. What's wrong being cautious and trying for an alternate solution or time. Not participating in the opening of a 3rd war is hardly the end of the US as a superpower.

Maybe they just want this all to happen in October instead so that it has an influence on the election.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:12 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 24):
Start bombing them and Iran goes from maybe staying closed and hostile for another generation, to definately being that way.

Even being threatened makes me very happy (and much more secure).

Signed
A Bunch of Ayatollahs
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:40 pm

I know the US no longer has a policy of knocking off heads of govt. but the Israelis don't seem to have this problem. So why don't they just smart bomb Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I mean the guy did say Israel should be wiped off the map and all. Is it that hard to get intel on his movements and whereabouts?
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4331
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:23 pm



Quoting SP90 (Reply 29):
So why don't they just smart bomb Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I mean the guy did say Israel should be wiped off the map and all. Is it that hard to get intel on his movements and whereabouts?

Bcqause Ahmadinejad is not the problem, rather the Mullah's running the show in the background. They might be nuts, but they are religious leaders. "Knocking them off" as you say is going to piss of a lot of religious people. It will definately backfire.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the young people of Iran (and there are plenty of them) are increasingly ready for change. Just sit it out, a new revolution will happen. Not tomorrow, not next year, but it will happen. Trying to speed up the process through military force will not be helpfull here. Doing so will give the current leaders the option to play the "look how patriotic we are against the threat of American terrorism"-card. Similarly to several governments using the "look how patriotic we are against the threat of Muslim terrorism"-card.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10991
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:25 pm



Quoting SP90 (Reply 29):
I know the US no longer has a policy of knocking off heads of govt. but the Israelis don't seem to have this problem. So why don't they just smart bomb Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

I think you mean assasinate by means other than smart bomb, that defeats the purpose as folks will know who did it, there are always bomb fragments, poison, car accident, gas explosion, crazy soldier etc etc all have plausible deniability and much untraceability.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:42 am



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 30):
Bcqause Ahmadinejad is not the problem, rather the Mullah's running the show in the background. They might be nuts, but they are religious leaders. "Knocking them off" as you say is going to piss of a lot of religious people. It will definately backfire.

I think your wrong on this Ahmadinejad is the problem, the Mullahs actually made him tone down his rehtoric in 2006 on several issues. They arent dumb they realize that their economy is very fragile and the US while they are dependant on oil has massive reserves if needed, like hugo chavez they talk but know where their money comes from.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:56 am



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 32):
They arent dumb they realize that their economy is very fragile and the US while they are dependant on oil has massive reserves if needed

The strategic oil reserve?? How many days would that last at say 12 million a day? Couple of months?
 
johns624
Posts: 4258
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:42 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
The strategic oil reserve??

I think he's actually talking about our real oil reserves that the politicians and eco-freaks won't let us drill for...
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting Johns624 (Reply 34):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
The strategic oil reserve??

I think he's actually talking about our real oil reserves that the politicians and eco-freaks won't let us drill for...

Maybe but they are not so massive and definitely not so much of a help in a shortage if you cannot produce them faster than the US already does. 6.8 million b/d in 2007 and with a majority from fields in decline, it is difficult to see it getting above 7 or 8 in the future - 8 would be "at last the 1998 show".

The 2008 data will be interesting. Difficult to think anyone was not flat out when oil was at US140, so the 2008 average will be pretty close to a max unless some major discoveries are made. Of course even 6.8 puts the US at third largest producer, trouble is, it is the largest consumer by a HUGE margin. China at 7.8 million barrels a day consumption is a poor second.
 
trex8
Posts: 5718
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:29 am



Quoting SP90 (Reply 29):
I know the US no longer has a policy of knocking off heads of govt.

didn't we target Saddam??
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:08 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 36):
Quoting SP90 (Reply 29):
I know the US no longer has a policy of knocking off heads of govt.

didn't we target Saddam??

Yes but technically he wasn't a leader any more, he was just another wanted criminal so we handed him over for trial by the Iraqi govt.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:11 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 37):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 36):
Quoting SP90 (Reply 29):
I know the US no longer has a policy of knocking off heads of govt.

didn't we target Saddam??

Yes but technically he wasn't a leader any more, he was just another wanted criminal so we handed him over for trial by the Iraqi govt.

 no   no   no  I think Trex8 might be remembering the first night of attacks when they were advanced because of firm intelligence on the location of Saddam. Forgotten already? Of course it missed, but I imagine it hit something. I think they had a few more attacks that were targeted against the 2003 version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Now it is back to missing Osama?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:41 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 37):
Yes but technically he wasn't a leader any more, he was just another wanted criminal so we handed him over for trial by the Iraqi govt.

March 19th, 2003. ~ 5.30am UTC, two F-117s drop four 2,000lb GBU-27 on the al-Dora farming community outside Baghdad, after intelligence was received that Hussein and his sons were there. Also over 40 Tomahawks were fired on the compound.

That was a full day before the actual invasion.

April 7th, 2003. A B-1 dropped four 2,000lb bombs on a suspected safe house in Baghdad's Mansour district, also after intelligence suggested Hussein was hiding there.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:24 am



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
With the way Iran can manipulate the US and the UN over their nuclear ambitions

I am just completely amazed that someone who was, and is, so adamantly opposed to the US war in Iraq.... you would be so eagerly willing to open up a large scale, and deadly, war with Iran? Without paying any thought to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of servicemen and women who would be at risk of death or capture. Or any thought to the larger implications of striking Iran, by potentially creating a regional conflict involving multiple states.

Such ignorance and hypocrisy, boggles the mind.

-UH60
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:03 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 40):
I am just completely amazed that someone who was, and is, so adamantly opposed to the US war in Iraq.... you would be so eagerly willing to open up a large scale, and deadly, war with Iran? Without paying any thought to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of servicemen and women who would be at risk of death or capture. Or any thought to the larger implications of striking Iran, by potentially creating a regional conflict involving multiple states.

Such ignorance and hypocrisy, boggles the mind.

-UH60

I can't see any Iran campaign going well...Iraq immediately will be thrown into chaos as a result. I think Sec Def Gates is pretty pragmatic on this one..He knows what they are up to, but realizes this isn't the time to start yet another war when we have our hands full elsewhere.

I know you have restrictions on what you can say on a message board, UH, but what do you think the Iranians are up to? Is their air defense system as good as people say?

Thanks for your service btw!!! I always feel like a loser because I couldn't enlist, so I do my best to support the Wounded Warrior Project, It's not the same as serving, but it's something you know?

-Sam
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:26 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 41):

Well when I was deployed to Iraq, I flew along both the Iranian and Syrian borders. And every time we would be "painted" by their air defense systems. They wanted us to know that that they knew we were there. It never went further than that, but it was still a memorable event when it would happen! That was over a year ago, and right now I don't really fly along the Iranian border, whereas I am on the other side of Afghanistan.

The Iranians are definitely more professional, and well trained than the Iraqis were, and more so than the Syrians. But they were still behind, say a NATO power, or the US, or even the ROK. Deadly, yes. Impenetrable, no. ...So, I have no doubt that an air campaign could be waged against the Iranians, and ultimately be successful. But it would be costly. It wouldn't be the relatively clean campaigns we saw in the Gulf War/Bosnia/Iraq & Afghanistan. We would certainly lose more assets than we have become accustomed to in the last 2 decades.

But the real issue is not limiting ourselves to thinking only about whether, or not, we could win... but the greater implications of waging such an attack. If you look at the possible repercussions of attacking Iran... it's frightening. Overall, over 250,000 US soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are stationed within immediate striking distance of Iranian missiles. Any attack would almost certainly widen into a greater conflict, risking greater amounts of manpower and treasure.

...So that is why it boggles my mind that people like AirRyan - who has professed his desire to protect the lives of US servicemen in Iraq, by withdrawing - would want to risk so many of those same lives in an even greater conflict!

It just seems like people have a knee jerk reaction to Iran - "lets bomb them" - without really thinking out the greater implications and consequences. And when AirRyan bemoans that the US has lost its superpower status, because of inaction towards Iran, is a clear example of a person not thinking on that higher and more complex level.

Not to mention its an insult to the lives he is so callously willing to toss into the fray.  Yeah sure

-UH60
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:15 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42):
But the real issue is not limiting ourselves to thinking only about whether, or not, we could win... but the greater implications of waging such an attack. If you look at the possible repercussions of attacking Iran... it's frightening. Overall, over 250,000 US soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are stationed within immediate striking distance of Iranian missiles.

Ability to severely hurt Iran is not in doubt, but as a certain President might have said, it rather depends on what you mean by "win" and of course it is clear that an initial win does not necessarily determine the state of play 5 or 7 years later.

These links might be of interest UH60 although I am sure there is nothing new for you.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/war...32.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The printed article has extensive graphs that are interesting but do not appear in the web version. I might scan them and post them if I have time. Don't know why they do this, it is so easy to plop the graphs in the text. The bit about the SoI is interesting, Sons of Iraq and paid $USD 300 per head per month. It seems that left to his own devices Maliki would not continue to pay them and the guess is that they might change their "attitude" if not paid!

The final two paras are:
When the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, this week presented her department's Distinguished Person's Award to General Petraeus and the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, at a function in Washington, no one was rude enough to recall the pre-invasion predictions by senior Washington figures that the vast majority of US troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq within months of the toppling of Hussein.

But Rice did reflect on the challenge. "It's been a very very long road in Iraq," she said, "harder, more difficult and longer than we would have imagined. Certainly harder, longer and more difficult that I personally imagined at the outset."


This is followed by:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/all...eded/2008/10/10/1223145635973.html
on Afghanistan.

That starts with:
The Eurovision song contest is one less than flattering assessment in senior Australian government circles of the European military effort in Afghanistan. It concerns the cluster of nations whose troops are confined mostly to the north, away from the main danger of the Taliban resurgence.

Nah, that is not appropriate, Russia is in the Eurovision song contest!

As UH60 suggests, adding Iran in the middle of those two problems would not exactly be a smart move.

And of course the final argument is that MAD is supposed to work for every other country with nukes, so why would it not work for Iran? Surely Pakistan should be more of a worry? But I don't suppose it wants a nuclear attack - either.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:13 pm

IMO some European nations have doubts that Afghanistan is within the remit of NATO.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:19 pm

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

As a matter of interest, the link refers to the Euroatlantic area.
 
dc863
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:24 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42):
Deadly, yes. Impenetrable, no.

Deadly for a few days. The Iranian forces would get mauled, their so called Navy would be sunk within 48hrs and any Iranian AF pilot dumb enough to challenge us or the Israelis would get shot down.
The Kurds in Iran's north would want to break away and the Baluchistanis in the far east might be willing to do the same. Iran isn't some ethnically homogenous country. It's ruled by a bunch of mullah farts who would have their hands full with ethnic unrest.
Iran, whether their is an air assault or not, cannot be allowed to have the bomb. Right now the longest range missile they have can reach Europe with a warhead.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:52 am



Quoting Dc863 (Reply 46):
The Kurds in Iran's north would want to break away and the Baluchistanis in the far east might be willing to do the same. Iran isn't some ethnically homogenous country. It's ruled by a bunch of mullah farts who would have their hands full with ethnic unrest.

Oh yes, they would just fall apart, the same way they did when attacked by Saddam (aided by the US one might add).  sarcastic   sarcastic 

I wonder if the Mullahs have more trouble with flatulence than the average bean-eating westerner?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:07 am



Quoting Dc863 (Reply 46):

I don't think you understood my basic point.

I wasn't really discussing the feasibility of a war with Iran... I was speaking towards the cost of such a conflict. A cost that a lot of hot headed, overly aggressive advocates of bombing Iran, seem to forget.

It would be me and my buddies on the line in any conflict, and all I ask is that all of the options be completely exhausted, and all consequences fully analyzed before going in. And I don't feel like that has happened yet.

-UH60
 
dc863
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran...

Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:02 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 47):
Oh yes, they would just fall apart, the same way they did when attacked by Saddam (aided by the US one might add).

Yes they would chum. Do you honestly believe that the Kurds and Baluchistanis would stay if they knew the Iranian mullah douchebag regime was about to fall?
Get a clue the attack launched either by the US/Israel would make Saddam's offensive look like a walk in the park.



Oh and why we're at it lets not forget the Iranian expats who are licking their chops at a chance to hang the mullahs when that dictatorship falls.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, Daetrin and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos