|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,155128,00.html
I may not believe that starting a military conflict with Iran is a good idea at the moment, but I DO believe that elements in Iran have been supplying weapons and such to our enemies in Iraq. Maybe that's because I have the clearance to see the evidence, or a job that puts me in a position to find the evidence (it's called caches or post blast). Or maybe I've just done entirely too much dope in my life....... like "Dallas" I'm going to wake up and this $h1t will have never happened. Just my two cents, Helen |
||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
There is little doubt that Iran has been supplying arms and equipment to insurgents inside Iraq to be used against us.
We did the exact same thing in supplying the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the early 80's (that had a lovely turnout in the end - OBL anyone?) - an operation ran for the most part by the same folks who are responsible for Iraq. PS - Sigint to Sigint, be careful about advertising your security clearance  |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
The answer is in the story. A politician should never, ever make a military decision. Sure, they get the ultimate power to make it. But, they should and must always heed the advise of professional in that arena.
Politicians always have a lot of money trains. They always have much to gain by particular actions. So, it is obvious that they will usually do what is in their overall best interest. Our current admins. past and present advisers and members all have pretty high profile business tie-ins. So, as a military veteran, I will usually ere on the side of the 4 star and utilize his judgment rather than than that of a businessman. Those are the men that usually get the less watered-down version of military capability assessments and the such. By the time it reaches the desk of a governmental figure, it will usually contain capital figures and gains. And, that has apparently not had a good track record for the prosperity of the average American in the last 40 or so years. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Everybody that has been there knows that the weapons have been coming from across the border, including in Afghan. Known for a long time, so why is this just now becoming an issue? Security clearance to see the obvious, lol.
|
|||
|
Member |
military.coms favorite contributer. His negativity towards our military and the current adminstration, knows no bounds. I guess being a victim works for some.
|
|||
|
New Member |
Badr guard,Mehdi militias,some sunni insurgents,and some other shitte militias in Iraq have close ties with mullahs in Iran,there is no doubt in that.So how these groups have to arm themselves ?Sure mullahs provide them some ice cream!.
Killing U.S. troops and forcing MNF in Iraq to leave the country is in big Intrests of mullahs.Nobody can deny mullahs intrest in that. Mullahs want war not diplomatic solution,what U.S and west should do? Diplomatoic solution to mullahs is this:U.S. get out of Iraq+Persian gulf+Afghanistan+Middle east,Israel move to Canada or United States!,Mullahs rule over middle east(at least),Hezbollah and Hamas rule over Lebonan and Palestine,west convert to Islam(mullahs type),West help mullahs to build nuke bomb(because U.S. has so they have to!),nobody talk about human rights in Iran,and ........... |
|||
|
New Member |
What a rediculous assertion that a sitting US President and/or Vice President would put lives of American Soldiers on the line just for political gain.
The number of Iranian-made weapons found inside Iraq have been released, I think I read it somewhere in the last couple of days. We've captured Iranian Operators in Iraq also so let's not fool ourselves. Iran is interfering with Iraq. Not only is the evidence plainly there, the motive is there also. |
|||
|
|
Banned by admin |
go figure more of the same Americas fault from the same ole person... i sure am not surprised... |
|||
|
|
Member |
Huber states the situation facing the Navy very clearly:
If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, the Navy and Marine Corps will have to be in the Persian Gulf. If the Navy withdrew from the Gulf before the Air Force attacked, not only would the Navy look fearful to the Iranians, they would also look that way to the Arabian Gulf States, other nations as well, and to the Defense Budget Engineers in the Congress. If they withdrew, the Persian Gulf would be "Persian" again. So the Navy has to stay. Mr. Huber also assumes that the Air Force is the military service that is most enthusiastic about attacking Iran. (It was reported in one of the English newspapers, whose headlines I scan daily, that a lot of work is being done on Diego Garcia so that the B2's can is it as a forward base for our stealth bombers.) That's probably true. The Army and Marine Corps would have to suspend operations in Iraq and turn their attention eastward toward the Iranian border. This would undo everthing that's been done there up to this point. Why is it "Un-American" to state the obvious? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
There are over a million people serving in the US Army alone. If there are 140,000 or less in Iraq, what makes you think we'd have to stop our operations to focus on Iran?
Peter Pace had a good point, much of our high tech equipment is already in theater, our troops are battle tested veterans, we are already in position, we have plenty of resources, and it would be a huge miscalulation on the part of Iran to assume that they stand a chance against us, in any capacity. The conventional war in Iran would last less than a week. The Iranian forces would melt in front of us like butter. Matter of fact, at least 70 percent of their most advanced, capable defense forces would be rendered combat ineffective before they even realized what was happening. Hell, Israel could pull that off themselves. You see all this rhetoric about how dangerous Iran is should be put into perspsective. The danger in Iran doesn't lie in conventional warfare, it lies in their ability to develop nuclear weapons and get them into the hands of terrorists. It may also lie partly in their ability to provide a recruitment and training ground for terrorists. Everyone likes to decry warfare and predict our doom at the hands of the enemy, but when it really comes down to it, the enemy doesn't stand a chance. Case in point - Afghanistan. Russia tried for 30 years in Afghanistan unsuccessfully. We did it in three weeks, with maybe 20% of our force capability. So, if we did end up in a fight with Iran, I seriously doubt we'd have to suspend operations in Iraq. |
|||
|
|
Suspended. S_S |
That's just crazy talk. Star a war with Iran and the whole of the South of Iraq (Shiites) will make the supply route through and on up to Baghdad and beyond, a killing zone. Think you've seem a fair amount of IED's so far? Pizz Iran off and that route will be practically unusable. If Iran then starts supplying the Sunni's too, you're in it over your head. For how long do you think the US could supply the troops in Iraq by air? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I wouldn't say it's crazy talk, I would rather liken it to a good evaluation of historical events, with perhaps a touch of analytical process. I would also have to point out the fact that Iran already supplies terrorists in Iraq with IED's. Those supply routes you refer to already exist. Additionally, the US already relies heavily on the air for supply purposes, but lets not overlook the importance of the sea. A lot of supply comes via the sea, then is flown north to Iraq. My point was that outright conventional warfare with the state of Iran wouldn't be much of a drain on our resources in Iraq. Best regards, |
|||
|
Member |
IMO, it isn't Ahmedinejad who runs Iran. It's an Ayatollah. Ahemdinejad, clever little monkey that he is, is just a "civilian" front with whom world leaders can do business. He's a puppet, IMO. Until access to the Ayatollahs can be made, we will never know what is REALLY going on inside the Iranian government mindset. IMO.
Consider, too: Piss off Iran, and you piss off Russia and China -- two countries who have invested heavily in that country. So. Do we REALLY want to start a military conflict with Iran? |
|||
|
|
Suspended. S_S |
Heh. Well, at least you stick to your guns, I’ll give you that much Joshua_Sergeant. I guess we’ll have to agree that one man’s ‘analytical process’ is another man’s ‘crazy’.
As I’m sure you’re aware, most of the attacks on US and Coalition forces have been initiated by Sunni’s, not Shiites, Al-Queda, or anyone else, and as we both know, the South of Iran is Shiite dominated, and if Iran is to support anyone first, it would be the Shiites . Start a war with Iran, a country who’s terrain leans heavily on the side of the defender and against the attacker, and the consequences would be enormous. . The amount of arms, including IED;s that Iran has been accused of supplying is rather a piddling amount in the scale of things. Should an attack on Iran be initiated by the US, the Iraqi Shiites, who have very strong ties with the Shiites of Iran, would have a field day in the South, denying by all means within their grasp, the route from South to North on the ground. The amount of troops and equipment needed to keep these routes open would be a huge drain in itself, never mind the extra violence created within the rest of Iraq by sympathetic Shiites. Not only that, but should Iran also decide to side with the Sunnis against the ‘Great Satan’, the drain on resources would soon become untenable as the US faced a unified enemy of both Sunni AND Shiite aggressors…. All that notwithstanding the resources needed to take the fight to the Iranians themselves. The Iranians are also no stranger to the use of chemical and biological warfare, something Hussein didn’t have at his disposal when attacked. They have good quality ballistic missiles, long and short-range systems, and are certainly no pushover. They are quite capable of closing down the Straits of Hormus to all oil traffic, and their shore-based anti-ship missiles would make short work of that. In short, to attack Iran at this stage, especially when they have not been internationally recognised as an aggressor nation, would be a folly of massive proportions with repercussions from Russia and China, both of whom have irreplaceable fuel deals with Iran.
With respect Joshua-Sergent, I believe you are just about as wrong as wrong can be. Best regards to you too sir. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
Well I'm not saying that I'm all knowing, but I have lived in Iraq since late 2005. I have been assigned in several different positions and I have witnessed firsthand the scale of American operations within the country. I do have to point out that, despite the surge numbers, our operations here are significantly less massive in scope than you would think. Our Air Force has no equivilant on the face of the earth, our naval power is just about at that level as well. Our Army and Marines have the most advanced, capable equipment of any army in existence. I also have to point out that we aren't strangers to biological/chemical warfare either. With respect, I'm afraid that you are wrong in this case my friend. All the best, |
|||
|
|
Suspended. S_S |
I think we can probably both agree to disagree without animosity on this subject sir. My best wishes go with you for a safe and speedy return from active service. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I think we can probably both agree to disagree without animosity on this subject sir.
My best wishes go with you for a safe and speedy return from active service.[/QUOTE] Thank you for the kind words. I wish I could give you a glimpse of what I've seen, then maybe you would be more inclined to agree. To every yin there is a yang. God Bless, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Squizzer
You're 180 on this one. There's no love loss between Najaf and Tehran opposition. There is sure to be some followers of the Grand Ayatollah, Seer, Oracle, Voice of God that sits in Tehran, but there's just as many followers of Sistani in Iran. Let's see. The CIA control the purse with the ISI of Pakistan during the civil war in Afghanistan during the 80's. So this makes us libel for OBL. That makes sense. UHhuh. Exoneration of Iran seems to come easy for some. Ben Laden is an Arab, I hope this is not news to you, but Afghanistan and Pakistan have seriously dislikes for Arab and ridiculed, rightfully so, the antic's of Osama. He lost more that he won, in fact you can say he never won a battle unless you count the one reported in a magazine that Ben Laden owned promoting himself. The Afghani laughed at him and remember, the royal jurga ask Osama to leave, it was Omar that broke custom and refused. My only problem is trying to justify Iran inspired in 1983 when they blew up the Beirut barracks killing 241 Marines and 72 French Marines. Come to think about it I'm fed up with the bunch of socialist tight arse prune faces that ridicule the cold war against communism. You must have been brain dead in that half century, but to refresh your memory contact by asking any person in eastern Europe or Stan country's and see if they'd return to Soviet domination. Too many gave their lives during the "cold war" for a bunch of desk jockies to belittle them.. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
