Haha, Israel has to fly over a lot of sovereign nation's territory to even be able to reach Iran's nuclear facilities, let alone declare proper war against them.

Israel would not nuke Iran in light of the current political situation, and they can't project but so much force over a long distance. Israel really isn't capable of leveling Iran conventionally, and the nuclear option is out of the question unless there is more international support for military action against Iran, unless the Israelis want all their neighbors and their allies to declare war on them.

Israel WOULD flee to us if their mission went horribly awry because we've got the only friendly military bases in the area should the Iranians actually be able to defend against their planned air attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities. If they lost a tanker halfway through the mission (say, one loaded with fuel?) they would have to land somewhere, and they sure as hell wouldn't do it in Iranian territory.

And as far as us not prodding them into bombing Iran, why wouldn't some of our politicians be doing it on the side? Keeping Iran's power under control is in our interest, and Israel has proven that they can get away with most any sort of military action without consequence. They have already been plenty hawkish on their own, and there is no reason for us to go bomb Iran since the Israelis already have been training for it. Hence, any politicians who would want to bomb Iran would be more likely to be supportive towards their Israeli contacts rather than trying to drum up public support for a war with Iran.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ^ http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm has lots of numbers.]

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ^ More here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations#Current_issues]

7/2/2008 2:36:18 PM

thanks

yeah i saw that site... i was gonna do some research on the org that put it out

7/2/2008 2:43:27 PM

ok who doesnt see some kinda strike against iran in the future? just seems like its one of those things thats bound to happen...almost feel like i did before the iraq war(just felt like "come on and do it already" before it started cause it just felt inevitable)

7/3/2008 6:26:13 PM

you guys have fun in the draft. i just tore my other acl, so i'm doubting i'll ever be drafted.


w00t

7/3/2008 6:27:37 PM

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Viet NamIran
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

7/3/2008 6:47:32 PM

I'm still not a US citizen, i'm never getting drafted. I'll be sending you guys postcards from my internment camp. OH SHIT

7/3/2008 7:18:30 PM

lol

7/3/2008 7:23:53 PM

Is 26 still the maximum draft age?

7/3/2008 8:27:51 PM

its good to be old

7/3/2008 9:16:30 PM

i think 35 was max draft age.

but it was done in stages. like 18-21 year olds not in college got it first. then followed by other groups. not exactly, but along those line.





[Edited on July 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ]

7/4/2008 12:09:49 AM

Help me out, here...why exactly are we giving the draft any serious discussion?

7/4/2008 1:50:23 AM

seriously



we are gonna use tactical nuclear weapons(ftw)

7/4/2008 1:50:50 AM

better hurry the fuck up b4 iran gets their nukes up in dis hizzaus!!11

in b4 M.A.D.

7/4/2008 3:26:29 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: Help me out, here...why exactly are we giving the draft any serious discussion?"

It's an election year.

7/4/2008 3:41:49 AM

ha, there you go.

7/4/2008 3:50:30 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p05FFS3IenM

Quote :

"Presidential candidate John McCain, who once sang in jest about bombing Iran, on Tuesday reacted to a report of rising U.S. cigarette exports to the country by saying it may be "a way of killing 'em." McCain, known for acerbic comments and for sometimes firing verbally from the hip, was responding to a report that U.S. exports to Iran rose tenfold during President George W. Bush's term in office despite hostility between the two states. A rise in cigarette sales was a big part of that, according to an Associated Press analysis of seven years of U.S. trade figures. "Maybe that's a way of killing 'em," McCain said to reporters during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. "I meant that as a joke, as a person who hasn't had a cigarette in 28 years, 29 years," he added, laughing."

It's just kinda goofy and silly until you stop and think that it betrays the fact that he wants to, and is planning on, killing Iranians

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2008 11:41:06 PM

not a big deal in my opinion

7/9/2008 12:05:14 AM

and you wonder why people want to kill Americans

its probably because we don't care if they live or die and it shows in our policies

7/9/2008 12:27:53 AM

Constitutionally speaking, we're not their keepers.

Morally, it's less clear...

...but we could always donate to charity if we wanted.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 1:31 AM. Reason : one day i will post without editing]

7/9/2008 1:30:47 AM

So here's a bit of an amusing (and I guess not entirely unexpected) update about these recent Iranian missile launches.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ik14cCceJS05D5D5LtCvk7HqoY3QD91S0T3O0

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Iran's missile test this week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, according to a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched. Iranian officials claimed the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put much of the Middle East in striking distance, including Israel — as close as 650 miles from Iran — as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian peninsula. The tests drew immediate criticism from U.S. officials. In Eastern Europe during the launches, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the missile tests underscored the need for a U.S. missile shield in the region. But an independent national security blog, ArmsControlWonk.com, Thursday analyzed video footage of the launch posted by the Iranian government. It determined the missiles were identical to a version of the Shahab missile first demonstrated in Iran in 1998 that has a known range of 746 miles. In a post called "Same old Boring Shahab 3," it compared the diameter of the missile to its length and found it to be identical to the 1998 version."

So it's just more aggressive chit chat and saber rattling. They still couldn't strike back at Israel if they wanted to, though I suppose they could still get us pretty good.

7/12/2008 1:40:51 AM

^ LOL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7501213.stm

Have Iran's leaders been reading Sun Tzu?

Quote :

"i did my time so im good"

Republican18

I hear you, brother. But if things ever got bad enough, I'd go back in.

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 3:23:57 AM

if things got bad enough that they were sending old geezers into combat zones, we'd all better just bend over and kiss our asses goodbye

7/12/2008 1:38:41 PM

imo it wouldnt be that hard for us to fuck them up...i mean sure oil would prolly shoot through the roof but it just doesnt seem that hard imo for us to really put them in a world of hurt

7/12/2008 2:02:53 PM

7/12/2008 2:05:47 PM

^^^ How about you shut the fuck up once in a while, schmoe?



Old Soldiers Back On Duty

Quote :

"'I need to serve my country and the call has come out, so I am doing that,' says Chief Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, who did her active duty back in the '60s."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/03/60minutes/main658994.shtml

7/12/2008 7:21:23 PM

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html

They photoshopped one of their missile photos to add another new missile.

7/12/2008 8:54:35 PM

Haha. I like the Boing Boing users' photoshops.

7/12/2008 9:07:04 PM

So a guy who works for me is getting deployed to Tehran next week. He's a green beret on active reserve (I think that's what it's called). This is not a good sign.

7/13/2008 9:30:04 AM

Quote :

"So a guy who works for me is getting deployed to Tehran next week."

huh?

7/13/2008 9:55:29 AM

^^^^^ So wait, are you saying that it is a good thing that we're calling these people up?

7/13/2008 10:58:58 AM

ahaha

Hooksaw compares his fanciful daydreams of going back into service, to the fact that 5-star General McArthur was "also" an old dude



and, FTR, CWO4's like the grey-hair are in a league of their own. they have some extremely highly specialized skill that are in very short supply

i don't think a former jailer-turned-english-literature-major is one of those short supplies that the armed services will waive their maximum age requirements for.

Sorry, but you'll have to find another way to get your NDSM, old chap.

7/13/2008 2:35:08 PM

Don't forget his GWOTSM as well.


I'm seriously trying to figure out what his point is though, if we're pulling out retired CW4s in their 50s, aren't we at that magical point where every chicken-hawk says, "well, if they need me, I'll sign up." Except, they keep saying that and they don't sign up.

Next, we'll get those predictable responses, "so, are you saying you have to serve in the military for your opinion to count?" and my answer at this point is . . . yes.

If you are one of those who supports a five year ongoing war in Iraq as being so critical to the survival of this nation that it must be fought at all costs, and given the fact that the political climate will never allow the draft, and given the fact that we've drastically lowered standards and drastically raised incentives to recruit and retain Soldiers then yes, you need to quit whatever it is that you're doing and serve. Or shut up. Or, since they're not selling war bonds this time around, you can just fill out that little box on your tax form to contribute extra money to the government. None of it will actually go to a war being paid for through massive borrowing, but you can feel a little better about yourself at night. Any of the above work for me.

7/13/2008 3:00:39 PM

omg you make so much sense....except that you argument is tired, holds no water and produces nothing in the way of a real solution..just rhetoric.

7/13/2008 3:16:59 PM

You and I have been over this before: message_topic.aspx?topic=509021&page=3#11111688

Does it provide an immediate solution to Iraq? No, but the invasion of Iraq was a solution to a non-existant problem that would probably not have occurred if the public had been faced with the very real threat of mass involuntary moblization.

Does it not strike anyone as odd that we haven't declared war since 1941? Not once? I can understand the need for sharp, quick military responses in some cases, but we've committed military forces in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, and Iraq again without even the pretense of a declaration of war and generally for the self-serving interests of the United States.

Please, justify for me our invasion of Iraq on something other than the weak and manipulated evidence that this administration put forward.

7/13/2008 3:27:01 PM

Quote :

"Old Soldiers Back On Duty "

not trying to make any sort of point, here...just sharing an interesting story.

Back in '04 when I first got commissioned, I worked PTAD (PTDY for you Army/AF types) for a couple of months in the Raleigh officer recruiting office while awaiting a spot in a school I needed. I only did a little bit of recruiting...mostly I helped with clerical stuff, answered phones, did gopher duties, and most of all, was sort of a hired-gun to run PFT's (fitness tests) on new applicants--I'd run the PFT events along with them to try and push them to get the best score they could (I'd run 4-5 PFTs per week sometimes)

Anyway, one day we had an old, retired USMC General call in to the recruiting office. He wanted back in, and the Captain told him "Sorry, sir...all we do is turn college kids into Marine Lieutenants...I'm not sure if there's any way for you to come back, but there's definitely nothing I can do for you in this office."

the General was like "Whatever, I just want to come back and do whatever I can to help. I'll do a Captain's job or a Lieutenant's job if they want me to...They don't even have to pay me anything--I'll do it for the retirement pay I'm already making."

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM. Reason : afdasfd]

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM. Reason : afsdfasd]

7/13/2008 3:29:01 PM

you'd think a USMC General (ret.) would have more contacts than to have to call up a college recruiting station.

kind of sad. he must have been REALLY old.

7/13/2008 3:39:49 PM

yeah, that's what i figure. every relatively recently retired Colonel or General I've ever known stayed relatively "in the mix", at least by retirement standards. I didn't talk to him, but my guess is that this guy had been out of the Marines for a quite a while.

7/13/2008 3:46:41 PM

While it seems obvious to me that a ground war with Iran would be silly and futile there is no reason once given provacation we ought not bomb them back to the stone age. Well, a good portion of the country is already there given their leader.

I heard an interesting point on the radio the other day, a caller brought up the point that we had no problem by in large with bombing all of the USSR on the basis of a few political radicals in power. YET, we are unwilling to seriously consider threatening middle eastern countries which have, comparatively speaking, a larger portion of the populace directly backing the anti-USA sentiment. Of course it is more muddy as to which states are actually operating with terrorists by proxy if any... I suppose there in lies the main difference. But the main point of distinction seems salient in my view. Why have we lost the willingness to bomb regions that by association are in anathema with the free world? Is it a lack of clarity, a rise in pacifism? Do people actually believe in the plurality and equivalence of world religions?

I have no good answers myself. I'd wager oil has more do with the government's strategy in the region.

All of this aside, I'd gladly fight for Israel long before most any other foreign or for that matter domestic interest. Sadly the computers can calculate trajectories much faster than myself so I'd be of little use.

7/13/2008 4:24:06 PM

Quote :

"there is no reason once given provacation we ought not bomb them back to the stone age."

Some of us have issues with killing innocent people.

7/13/2008 4:37:00 PM

Quote :

"a caller brought up the point that we had no problem by in large with bombing all of the USSR on the basis of a few political radicals in power. YET, we are unwilling to seriously consider threatening middle eastern countries which have, comparatively speaking, a larger portion of the populace directly backing the anti-USA sentiment."

The problem with conducting an air offensive without a ground component is that, after the initial strikes, what is left of the Iranian military infrastructure will be extremely difficult to find, much less destroy. US HUMINT is notoriously poor, especially in countries like Iran, so we could wind up expending massive amounts of ammunition and money while accomplishing very little.

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Iranians aren't radical American-hating Islamic fundamentalists. Ahmadinejad's popularity is based more on his nationalism than his anti-western fervor. A widespread and indiscriminate bombing campaign, hell even a targeted one with the unavoidable collateral damage, would do much to turn them against us.

Besides, further extending our military (the USAF isn't strained for personnel, but their aircraft maintenance needs are being strained) in response to a threat from a country without the ability to directly inflict military harm on us, isn't exactly the wisest long term strategic policy.

As for the USSR, I think the caller on whatever show you referred to missed the point that, although we were willing, in theory, we did everything in our power to prevent it from happening unless it came to a last resort. That isn't the sort of thinking being promoted here.

7/13/2008 4:41:47 PM

Quote :

"mathman : While it seems obvious to me that a ground war with Iran would be silly and futile there is no reason once given provacation we ought not bomb them back to the stone age."

Because you're an out-and-out fucking retard, and completely ignorant of both general military strategy and the history of the four (4) recently US-started or US-involved wars of the past 20 years, if you think a bombing campaign can achieve any strategic objective without following through with massive number of boots on the ground.

this was firmly and conclusively established by the Powell Doctrine, and it's because of blind neo-con PNAC jerkoffs like the ones you obviously listen to, that we're still bleeding thousands of American lives, limbs, livelihoods and broken families -- not to mention trillions of of American tax dollars -- into this two-front quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight

so please just shut the fuck up already, you stupid cunt.







[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2008 5:24:06 PM

somalia and yugoslavia

Or were those not in the four you mentioned?

7/13/2008 5:38:17 PM

no, i didnt count somalia.

i think i blacked that one out of my mind. it was pretty fucking traumatic for the national psyche.

but whatever, please don't tell me you're trying to compare our failed action against Somalian warlords to initiating war against a major regional power like Iran.




[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2008 5:43:15 PM

Quote :

"there is no reason once given provacation we ought not bomb them back to the stone age"

You want a mulligan on that post? That's really, really stupid for a variety of reasons.

7/13/2008 6:38:58 PM

I think a lot depends on this election.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

...scary


[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM. Reason : bad link]

7/14/2008 8:36:43 AM

fyi,

we also don't want to piss Russia off by doing this. they're 13+% of the world's oil:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html

7/14/2008 11:07:22 AM

The hypothetical provocation I based the last post from was something on the lines of another 911 or suitcase nuke being set off in the US, AND we had reasonably good intelligence which country was operating by proxy against us. Pretty big assumptions? Yes. But, that's the sort of provocation I think we should have before going to war. (Iraq for example would not warrant the sort of response I meant to discuss in my last post, it is more a police action than a war)

Quote :

"JCASHFAN The problem with conducting an air offensive without a ground component is that, after the initial strikes, what is left of the Iranian military infrastructure will be extremely difficult to find, much less destroy. US HUMINT is notoriously poor, especially in countries like Iran, so we could wind up expending massive amounts of ammunition and money while accomplishing very little. "

I meant nukes. I don't think there is a well-established history of what will happen. Obviously these are a last resort, but the question the caller raised was why is it that it seems to be off the table even from the beginning with countries other than the USSR?

Quote :

"JCASHFAN Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Iranians aren't radical American-hating Islamic fundamentalists. Ahmadinejad's popularity is based more on his nationalism than his anti-western fervor. ... "

neither were many people in certain areas of the USSR, that didn't change the fact that we threatened them on the basis of the country with which they were associated. I agree with you, most Iranians are probably fairly modern civilized nonviolent folks. Most Americans are the same, that will not stop other governments murdering US citizens by proxy of terrorists. Again this is a weapon of last resort.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN ... A widespread and indiscriminate bombing campaign, hell even a targeted one with the unavoidable collateral damage, would do much to turn them against us. Besides, further extending our military (the USAF isn't strained for personnel, but their aircraft maintenance needs are being strained) in response to a threat from a country without the ability to directly inflict military harm on us, isn't exactly the wisest long term strategic policy. As for the USSR, I think the caller on whatever show you referred to missed the point that, although we were willing, in theory, we did everything in our power to prevent it from happening unless it came to a last resort. That isn't the sort of thinking being promoted here."

That is probably the biggest distinction, can the Islamic Jihad kill us long term? Perhaps this is a question of technology. If suitcase nukes become easier to construct or if biological or chemical agents fall into the wrong hands it is conceivable that a relatively small force could do widespread harm to a country like ours. I disagree with the common assertion (not saying that you made it here) that only since Bush took office did the rest of the world hate us. Jimmy Carter was the biggest pacifist I can think of in recent history, they hated us then just the same. They hate Israel. As long as we are truly Israel's ally we are the enemy of much of that part of the world. No amount of posturing or restraint will change that. Barring of course we forsake Israel.

Quote :

"joe_schmoe Because you're an out-and-out fucking retard, and completely ignorant of both general military strategy and the history of the four (4) recently US-started or US-involved wars of the past 20 years, if you think a bombing campaign can achieve any strategic objective without following through with massive number of boots on the ground. this was firmly and conclusively established by the Powell Doctrine, and it's because of blind neo-con PNAC jerkoffs like the ones you obviously listen to, that we're still bleeding thousands of American lives, limbs, livelihoods and broken families -- not to mention trillions of of American tax dollars -- into this two-front quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, with no end in sight "

I was more trying to get across the threat of nukes, not necessarily the actual use of force. With the USSR the mere threat of an overwhelming attack eventually proved to end the cold war. Moreover, perhaps counterintuitively, the overwhelming threat of force can actually avoid excess casualities. The worst war is a fair one. I think that was Reagan's genious, not just stay the course, Star Wars, go for the overlord approach. Did he actually intend to nuke them? No. The mere threat of force kept the peace. Peace through strength. I think the core of the caller's point is that. Why is peace through force not a valid option when combating by-proxy terrorist actions.

I did not mean to suggest we use conventional (non-nuclear) warfare and begin another land war in the middle east. That would be stupid, almost as stupid as not building new nulcear plants here and/or increasing our refining capabilities.

Sorry, geez, guess I should have clarified "bomb" to mean nuclear retaliation. I thought I was clear about the need for "provocation".

Quote :

"theDuke866 You want a mulligan on that post? That's really, really stupid for a variety of reasons. "

I should have been more clear from the outset I meant nuclear retaliation, and only for reasonably verified provacation. Like a suitcase nuke in NYC with clear ties back to Iran or Syria. Something of that nature.

As I said to begin with, the nature of the by-proxy terrorist act tends to muddy the waters. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove who was responsible for setting off a suitcase nuke.

I just found the caller's point interesting. We demanded for 40 some odd years that the president be willing to push the red button if the time came, but now do we make that same demand if an attack of a similar nature was carried out by say Iran or Syria or Pakistan? I think not.


[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

7/14/2008 11:52:31 AM

Quote :

"and you wonder why people want to kill Americans"

i thought the reason (Iran) has declared death to America was a deranged religious and ideological cultist mindset of intolerance and general senselessness, but thanks for correcting me and informing me its because of an off color joke about cigarettes

7/14/2008 12:35:26 PM

^^ Nukes? Who is the fuck is talking about Nukes?

the language in my post was unnecessarily harsh, i would tone some of it down if i could redo it.

But NUKES? I certainly do not think you are THAT stupid. Are you???

7/14/2008 2:12:24 PM

^ sorry, I did jump topic a bit... as I stated the post was an echo of a rather unusual call I heard on some talk show... I know your passion on the topic does not reside in a deep seated hatred for all things mathman, but rather because you have a well developed hatred for recent US military actions ( and your hate is directed towards the leadership, not the grunts )

But, yes we should threaten nukes for certain acts. Again not to say we would actually follow through, but the mere appearance of strength could be a tool to negotiate peace. As I have stated, an actual nuclear counterstrike would need serious proof that some country was involved in the provoking act against us. This to my mind is the main difference between the USSR cold war situation and the terrorist warfare we may encounter in the future. If the USSR launched an intercontinental ballistic missile then it was clear enough who was the culprit. A suitcase nuke or biological/chemical incident would be much harder to trace. BUT, if it could would you be for the counterstrike? Would you be for sanctions in response to a mass casualty event on US-soil ? Are we still willing to defend the nation with all our capabilities or just those that the world finds politically acceptable?

7/14/2008 10:28:40 PM