Continued Aggression By Iran Sparks New Look At Options By U.S. Military

A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran.

Read the entire article at National Terror Alert from Homeland Sevurity

On May 2 1964 the Viet Cong sunk an American Carrier (USS Card) in the Saigon River.

Starting a war with Iran might just get another one, or two, sunk in the Persian Gulf.

yup iran is the #1 largest state sponsor of terrorism....

Though I can't support what Iraq is doing, especially when our boys are getting hurt or killed. I do question one thing.

Are we any better? Didn't we after all, supply weapons and advisors to Afghanistan during their war with Russia?

quote:

Originally posted by fishnfanatic:
Though I can't support what Iraq is doing, especially when our boys are getting hurt or killed. I do question one thing.

Are we any better? Didn't we after all, supply weapons and advisors to Afghanistan during their war with Russia?

I see the logic in your words but we're the good guys.

Yeah, we supplied Mujahadeen and Pakistan with 6 billion dollars of things that went pop. In the end we saw the Soviets Union go belly up. My idea of the timing was self preservation on our part in this part of the world. (Persian gulf) The Shah was still secure in Tehran and Russia needing a warm water port plus having lost much of their presence in the middle east by then, saw opportunity. Besides the direct conflict of interest with the Soviets in Europe, Africa, Cuba, etc..Afghanistan/Pakistan was added to the list.

The US is the only one with balls enough to do anything about Iran. Hopefully any ops conducted will turn out much better than the failed hostage rescue attempt under Uncle Jimmy.

quote:

Originally posted by biggatorsc:
The US is the only one with balls enough to do anything about Iran. Hopefully any ops conducted will turn out much better than the failed hostage rescue attempt under Uncle Jimmy.

By all means, let's open another front with Iran. We have plenty of fresh ground troops, right? Besides, we can contract Blackwater to fight the war if we don't have the troops. Just borrow a few hundred billion more from the Peoples Republic of China.

Once again.. Ahmadamnednutjob does understand that even with both hands full we can still kick like a mule.. the only question is if he's willing to gamble on whether or not we will.. % iraqi officials went to met with the Quds commanders to confront them with evidence of direct involvement in arming and training militias.. be interesting to see what comes of that...

quote:

Are we any better? Didn't we after all, supply weapons and advisors to Afghanistan during their war with Russia?

Ya but we are us!

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:

quote:

Originally posted by fishnfanatic:
Though I can't support what Iraq is doing, especially when our boys are getting hurt or killed. I do question one thing.

Are we any better? Didn't we after all, supply weapons and advisors to Afghanistan during their war with Russia?

I see the logic in your words but we're the good guys.

Yeah, we supplied Mujahadeen and Pakistan with 6 billion dollars of things that went pop. In the end we saw the Soviets Union go belly up. My idea of the timing was self preservation on our part in this part of the world. (Persian gulf) The Shah was still secure in Tehran and Russia needing a warm water port plus having lost much of their presence in the middle east by then, saw opportunity. Besides the direct conflict of interest with the Soviets in Europe, Africa, Cuba, etc..Afghanistan/Pakistan was added to the list.

The Shah fled in January 1979 ... the Soviets didn't invade until December.

quote:

Originally posted by biggatorsc:
The US is the only one with balls enough to do anything about Iran. Hopefully any ops conducted will turn out much better than the failed hostage rescue attempt under Uncle Jimmy.

Hopefully we will show enough brains not to.

We popped old Saddams head off needed some ground troops!

With Iran we need to blow all their sht up, so we use, bombs, big bombs, huge bombs, missiles, rockets, drones, Tridents, rain the rath of God on the beggers!

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:
We popped old Saddams head off needed some ground troops!

With Iran we need to blow all their sht up, so we use, bombs, big bombs, huge bombs, missiles, rockets, drones, Tridents, rain the rath of God on the beggers!

There are about 75 million of them, Chief. How many of them do you think we have to kill before it actually improves our situation, just as a SWAG? Do you think there is any realistic possibility that such an attack actually makes our situation worse?

With Iraq we popped Saddams head off, needed some ground troops!

With Iran we need to destroy some of their stuff.

We need to use bombs, big bombs, hugh bombs, missiles, rockets, Tridents, and rain the rath of God down on thoes beggers!!

Well we could be soft on the beggers, my point was mainly to take out their stuff

Bush wants to bomb Iran before his term is over and must continue to make Iran out to be a bigger threat than it really is in order to try and drum up support for it.
He puts 2 aircraft carriers and support ships at risk of supersonic anti ship missiles and much increased interference in Iraq.
All a US attack will do is put Iraq into chaos as shia loyalists choose sides.

Mullas with mega bombs....Now thats scary

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:
Mullas with mega bombs....Now thats scary

Pakistan already has them and just tested a new IRBM which further increases the threat posed to the entire region. Pakistan is no more stable than Iran, yet no one is calling for them to give up nuclear weapons.

Well there's good terrorists and there's bad terrorists

quote:

Originally posted by EAG154:
Well we could be soft on the beggers, my point was mainly to take out their stuff

War consists of the plans of Two nations, not one. Basic to your post is the assumption, that we will do this or we will dothat. The question you should be asking, is what can they do, and what Will they do?

Are they capable of launching a ground invasion? Are they capable of infiltrating large numbers of men? Will their supporters in Iraq sit quietly, or will they also attack us? What about Iranian oil?

In other words, what happens in a worst case scenario? And what happens anywhere in between?

My take on this is quite simply that we don't need another war, on even a small scale. In a worst case scenario, are we going to nuke them, because our aggression against them doesn't pan out so well?

Will we evacuate Afghanistan because we don't have the resources to do anything? How will attacking an enemy of Al Qaeda affect the GWOT?

A number of intelligent commentators, from William Lind on the Far right to Liberals like Seymour Hersh, have predicted that this is exactely what this administration wants. That this administration never plans for what could happen, but always what they expect will happen.

This is folly pure and simple. When pragmatic decisions are based purely on ideology, a nation is in trouble.

Dave