Not a mitigating factor, since the US has a lot of other support there even now, and during the Soviet days, the Russians were also fighting the cold war on other fronts too.

horseboy
Weird theory I just heard. Basically the report was hokum.

No man, that's "hokum". The US doesn't do those sorts of reversals as a trick, they might be sneaky, but they're not truly idiots. Not at that level anyway.

That theory rates up there with Bush planning the Word Trade Centre event.

Sigh! Look people we can take Iran via air power alone for a given value of take. Now take, I said; I did NOT say take and hold.

If your military vocabulary will flex or stretch enough in this instance to allow TAKE to substitute for seroiusly mess up the infrastructure and civilian count and do incredible filth to a nation's economy for a lengthy time to follow then we are on the same page here. It is conceivable that after enough bombing runs that the nation would surrender. Huh! Wouldn't that be a sticky wicket? I mean what would we do with Iran then?

If, however, take exclusively means to you take and hold a nation indefinitely without having to do anything by way of post take military nastiness, then no, the United States could not take Iran via the air route exclusively. Not - and I add this for the people looking at things from the opposite extreme of the definition scale - unless we as a nation were also willing to include some of the really evil things lurking in our air attack arsenal in the attack equation. Shudder!


The above argument and definition of terms segments make for interesting intellectual exercises but seldom settle anything. It's simply too easy to misunderstand or to be deliberately ingenuous where terminology comprehension or agreement is concerned.


Via air power, the United States could dramatically cripple the entire nation of Iran for a limited amount of time. That would be the 'take' part of the equation. There would be military experts and U.S. politicians AND Big Business interests who would find this advantageous. Don't ask ME why. My brain doesn't comprehend the deep thinking of the serpent set. But this is why I mentioned an air strike 'take' in the first place. Some important and influential U.S. based interests do consider this approach to be an acceptable definition of 'Take.' The fact that I find it revolting signifies nothing. The fact that I also know that it would be impossible to keep Iran down via this methodology is beyond the issue. I believe that it is a 'solution' that has received serious consideration in U.S. halls of power and influence. In some halls of power it is thought worthwhile to even temporarily cripple the nation of Iran. Thus to 'take' the nation.

Reality is what the movers and shakers embrace and thereafter force down our throats.

Whether or not the oil extraction equipment was also targeted would skew the 'take formula' enormously in one direction or the other. The same is true of whether or not major civilian population centers would be targeted or even repeatedly targeted. The backlash against the United States would be extreme but firebombing of cities can be placed on the table if the big ladies and gentlemen running the United States decide they want to play major league hard ball. I simply did not think we needed to have our noses rubbed in the huge array of miseries that could be dropped on the heads of population centers should the leaders of our nation decide that such disregard for humanitarian restraint was warranted. After all, we are NOT talking about people overly burdened by humanitarian considerations.

Regardless, even in order to bring the nation temporarily to its knees would require an enormous amount of hideously nasty working over and the cost to the civilian population would be beyond the term revolting.

NOW, if anyone misunderstands this post then I just don't know if words exist to paint a clearer picture.

IF your vision of 'take' means to conquer and hold indefinitely then no, of course a massive series of devastating air strikes would not work, not unless you were willing to take it to obscene levels, which probably not even the insane Bush administration would do -- although I'm wary of putting anything past them.

By that definition, however, no nation can permanently be taken unless it is vested with a massive occupation force for generations to follow. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of one vision of take not - er - taking.

If, however, your vision of 'take' is currently flexible enough to concede that it can consist of just seriously messing with a nation's infrastructure, civilian population, and doing their business segment major league filth, then, yes, we can take Iran . . . for a brief amount of time . . . depending on how much evil we as a nation would stand for doing via the air route. Supposedly our own U.S. interests would somehow be served while Iran was groping on the ground trying to find the scattered segments of its teeth again.

Are we sharing the same page of comprehension yet in that we can more or less agree on the rather flexible definition of TAKE? By golly, it is a cherished goal I fervently desire to achieve.

Yeah baby, are your with me yet?! Yes? Yes?! Or have I missed the mark yet again? Hey, I'm just asking . . .

I don't misunderstand you.

The thing is though; that's all simply an intellectual exercise...
Just attacking Iran would be utterly without point. A costly waste of everything. Heh, the funny thing is; all that particular move does is weaken the US on every conceivable strata.

That's like saying I could beat up Mike Tyson... I'd just get a sledge hammer, sneak up on him one dark night and smack him in the head: It's perfectly feasible but doing it that way hurts me too because there'd either be retaliation attacks from some quarter and/or I'd be straight off to jail with the possibility of even worse treatment.
But if I trained up and did it in the ring, boxing, the outcome would be very, VERY different.

Then it looks like we are on the same page then. I agree with everything short of your last sentence ozoneocean, as I don't see its relevance to the discussion.

None of this really matters, however, in that it is just an intellectual exercise in absurdity, or should that be absurd grotesqueness? None of us can conceive how 'taking' Iran would serve the U.S. as a nation any significant advantage considering the international backlash, that doing so, would snap at our head.

It is only when you realize that the Bush Administration apparently really does not give one unholy fart in hell about the long term best interests of the United States that the true horror of the possibility strikes home. Yes, they have considered ways and means of taking Iran and I would be very surprised indeed if it were not still a cherished idea that some of them remove from the shelf every once in a while to fondle with extreme tenderness. That these are collectively self-serving and quasi-evil people I have grown to believe since we, as a nation, were snookered through propaganda expertise into endorsing the Iraq invasion.

I still maintain that despite it being the height of insanity Bush and Cheney still have a potential Iran take-down in the back of their minds as a desirable goal. No, we should not invade Iran via boots on the ground or by air power alone [which could be done if reducing the nation to ruination - or at least to intimidate the hell out of it and perhaps inspire an attitude adjustment - were the goal.

That's just it, though; we, the people of the United States of America, have utterly no idea at all what Bush/Cheney are really up to in this administration nor - beyond guess work based on their current insane actions to date - what they really will or will not do, nor even what THEY consider viable plans.

It's not quite as bad as having a truly insane and viscous and evil pair of mad men running this nation, as they do seem restrained by some sense of personal danger or feeling for what other movers and shakers within this nation may tolerate, but they are also very much aware that their fellow powers that be will - based on accrued evidence - tolerate one hell of a lot.

So the real question is not should we invade or strike against Iran but, despite all the insanity involved in doing so, will we invade or strike against Iran anyway regardless of the foolishness inherent in doing so?

The last sentence was an analogy for "to properly invade Iran, take and hold it, and have all the benefits that would confer, even though such an occurrence would be rather unlikely".

CharleyHorse
So the real question is not should we invade or strike against Iran but, despite all the insanity involved in doing so, will we invade or strike against Iran anyway regardless of the foolishness inherent in doing so?

Currently it looks unlikely. Israel apparently want to, and could very much use US support in that, but striking Iran isn't like striking Syria or Lebanon... it's not an easy target that they can just unleash mayhem and slaughter on as they please with tacit US backing. For US sanction and help there needs to be a compelling reason, like the nuclear story.

I don't see that happening now, just like I don't seen invasion happening.

The most likely scenario for aggressive action against Iran would be a bombing raid by Israel on the nuclear facilities in Iran, as well as various radar and anti-aircraft systems. They'd have 100% US help here, but it'd all be behind the scenes: The US command would be fully briefed and kept up to date, they'd have input on strategy and Israel would be provided with all the latest intelligence data etc. Routine stuff between close allies really, but not acknowledged by the US.
Where the US would come to the fore and be open is in preventing any retaliation: Both issuing vetoes in the UN security council, and openly using US forces to block any action from Iran- the way an ally should.

So no real invasion, but a small "victory", and that'd be good enough for the war advocates for now.

CharleyHorse
If your military vocabulary will flex or stretch enough in this instance to allow TAKE to substitute for seroiusly mess up the infrastructure and civilian count and do incredible filth to a nation's economy for a lengthy time to follow then we are on the same page here. It is conceivable that after enough bombing runs that the nation would surrender. Huh! Wouldn't that be a sticky wicket? I mean what would we do with Iran then?

The same is true of whether or not major civilian population centers would be targeted or even repeatedly targeted. The backlash against the United States would be extreme but firebombing of cities can be placed on the table if the big ladies and gentlemen running the United States decide they want to play major league hard ball.

These two in particular remind me a lot of WWII. Where Germany and Britain bombed the crap out of each other's factories and when we firebombed Tokoyo nightly. It's things that the major players have done before, and honestly that kinda disturbs me. All we'd need would be one good provocation, like Pearl Harbour or another 9/11 and we could be looking at it again. Thank goodness it's not on my head though and this is just an intellectual exercise.

Yes horseboy, all it would take would be a provocation. At last poll taking something like fifty percent of the anti-intellectuals making up the U.S. population actually think that invading Iran would be a good thing. Ye Gods!

The thing to remember is that the same massive propaganda machinery that the rightwingers used to promote the invasion of Iraq is still fully operational and , to this day, utterly unopposed. On top of that, our main stream media played ball with the rightists for Iraq and might possibly do so again given another string of embedded reporting slots as promises against 'good behavior.'

Yes, it could all happen again. I honestly don't think Bush/Cheney give a damn as to what shape they leave this nation upon their departure.

Anyway, I think I've done enough flogging of this deceased horse, and shall leave further whacking on the subject matter to others.

horseboy
All we'd need would be one good provocation, like Pearl Harbour or another 9/11 and we could be looking at it again. Thank goodness it's not on my head though and this is just an intellectual exercise.

hey you don't hear me complaining about afghanistan do you? in fact we should have concentrated on them and finished the job and brought bin laden to justice.

And why exactly did we get involved with the first gulf war anyway?? Because the Kuwaitis were cousins of the Saudis. Hussein was conveniently demonized for his part in a regional struggle with Kuwait, who did a lot to merit his attack before the first gulf war. Saddam never had a beef with us until we double crossed him.

Iran did even less to us, they held out their hand in peace to us after they deposed their shah, a brutal vicious dictator we supported, and we knocked their hand away and gave asylum to the shah, instead of letting him stand trial for crimes against humanity in his own country, like we insisted hussein do.

Since then we funded Hussein's war against Iran(back when it was conenient for us to be pals with him), which makes our bellyaching about Iran funding covert terrorism in Iraq almost laughable. I guess proxy wars are only ok if it's ones we agree with.

Provocation??? The only provocation Bush needs to invade a country is a phonecall from Haliburton.

I have a new title for this thread:

Suicide - Should we commit it?

I ask the esteemed congressman from Virginia.. are we suiciding hard enough?

I think we may be half-assing it.

albone
I think we may be half-assing it.

You think so?? Let's check Iraq and Afghanistan....

;)

*slams head on keyboard*

SpoonsREvil
*slams head on keyboard*

Nice kitty :nervous:

CharleyHorse
Yes, it could all happen again. I honestly don't think Bush/Cheney give a damn as to what shape they leave this nation upon their departure.

Presidents always worry about "the legacy thing". However many who were derided during their presidency by the media were later respected as visionary leaders by history. We'll just have to see how history treats W. I think his presidency is a lot like FDR's. Under constant attack by the media and his political opposition while in office for very good reasons but after twenty years seen as something better than he really was. Heck, even Regan is getting the 20 year brush up now that he's dead. In a few years the "Regan Era" will be buried under so much BS it wont be recognizable to those of us who lived through it. Of course having bigger crooks come along that make us pine for "the good old days" helps out with that process. Regan looks better after Clinton, Clinton looked better after Bush II. The next guy will likely make Bush II look good by comparison.

That's very true Mister Mxyzptlk. Regan was a bumbling fool, everyone thought so at the time, and now he's a cold war hero. lol!
I doubt Bush jnr will get the same treatment though, I really do, unless some miracle happens he'll always have the albatross of Iraq around his neck. It's funny though, because if he'd have left things with Afghanistan, he really would be thought of as a hero, he wouldn't have been one of course, but that's how he'd be seen right now and forever after.

ozoneocean
That's very true Mister Mxyzptlk. Regan was a bumbling fool, everyone thought so at the time, and now he's a cold war hero.

Amazing how much difference 20 years makes. Of course when you take into consideration life expectancies and relative political awareness it makes sense. Most people aren't really aware of politics and presidents until they are in their late twenties and since they get all hard bitten and cynical before 60 that's only 30 some years of really noticing what's going on. Most people voting today don't even know who Regan WAS much less what he DID. All they have is what they learned in the history books and since it's a government school teaching about government they are pretty respectful of the legacy thing.

Take a president from 40 years ago, say Kennedy, and the level of legacy BS is even deeper. Ah the sacrifices and the wonderfulness... Sure there was that Bay of Pigs thing and the whole brink of WWIII that he brought on by being inflexible over Turkey but hey, he got popped in office so we have to love him. Once you get past 60 years they were all Great Men (tm) and served their country well. Even if at the time there were calls to impeach them and they had rioting in the streets in response to their programs...

ozoneocean
I doubt Bush jnr will get the same treatment though, I really do, unless some miracle happens he'll always have the albatross of Iraq around his neck.

But in twenty years will it still be an albatross? Vietnam was a horrible failure but JFK and LBJ are remembered well for their time in office. Just like Regan will be remembered for "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Bush will only be remembered for his better speeches... not that he had that many, but the historians will snip them so he sounds better.

ozoneocean
Regan was a bumbling fool, everyone thought so at the time, and now he's a cold war hero. lol!
I doubt Bush jnr will get the same treatment though, I really do, unless some miracle happens he'll always have the albatross of Iraq around his neck. It's funny though, because if he'd have left things with Afghanistan, he really would be thought of as a hero, he wouldn't have been one of course, but that's how he'd be seen right now and forever after.

True Reagan gets that hero tag, But Bush is no Reagan.

And there are plenty of presidents in history who have been villified, so time does not erase all wounds. Ask Herbert Hoover [whitehouse.gov]

And Regan was no hero. If Regan can get that label, anybody can.

Maybe Mister Mxyzptlk is even right about the Iraq thing. Bush Jnr. won't be around for the final stages, it'll be left to the poor bastard after him to clean up the mess, in Afghanistan too. Just like Nixon had the bad part of Vietnam, not Kennedy or LBJ.

Its a process called presidential beautification. In truth there have been very few "popular" presidents in our history. Historians would rather tarnish one president than three.

ozoneocean
That's very true Mister Mxyzptlk. Regan was a bumbling fool, everyone thought so at the time

Sorry brother, but that's not true at all. Reaganites have always been around. Remember Alex from Family Ties? How about David Spade's character in PCU? Reagan's been worshipped from the time he was in office to the present.

I remember, but I also remember that Alex was a parody. ;)
The satire and parody surrounding him back then was pretty heavy. heh, all leaders get parodied, and of course he would have had support or he wouldn't have been elected, but most thinking people (never in the majority of voters) still thought he was stupid to the point of being dangerous. Even a lot of his supporters thought he was a bit of a bumbling, although harmless, old gent.

I know what you're saying about the goofy, but everyone didn't think he was a "bumbling fool".

No need to be literal man. :)
Certainly many more people thought that then than they do now.

TnTComic
I know what you're saying about the goofy, but everyone didn't think he was a "bumbling fool".

No some of us thought he was a stooge for the neocons, one with a knack for sounding sincere and earnest. A pitch man for neoconservative perversion of a so called brand of patriotism, just like he was a pitch man for refridgerators and cigarettes. It was really his team of evil henchman that caused all of the trouble. I really believe him when he said he didn't remember stuff, because I think Bush SR. and Baker kept him out of the loop on a lot of the Black ops.

But since the Cold war ended on his watch, many call him a hero. But I don't see Bush senior getting the hero tag, after all he got wacked after one term in office. He's a loser, and history hates those.

LBJ gets a big asterisk on his presidency because he stepped down as a candidate for president before his second term after a groundswell of grassroots criticism about his escalation in Viet Nam, even after Bobby Kennedy got shot and the party could have used him.

Nixon isn't likely to avoid being vilified for his wrongdoing, but Clinton will likely get a pass because his impeachment can be spun as a rightwing hatchet job, especially since they were unsuccessful in ousting him.

Eisenhower gets a lot of props for being a war hero, but I happen to think Ike's greatest moment is his butally honest and prophetic speech warning against the rise of the military industrial complex.

FDR might have had strong critics in his day, but lets not forget he presided over America's transformation from a country in financial and social ruin, to the dominant military and economic power in the world. All that and he kicked Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito's collective ass for good measure. That's not spin.

So I really don't think Bush Jr is likely to get a successful makeover, 9-11 happened on his watch and he never brought the perp to justice, instead he lauched a war in Iraq which he bungled so badly that his party got thrown out of power. Add to that his economic and environmental escapades and throw in Katrina for good measure, and I'd say history will not remember him fondly.

bobhhh
FDR might have had strong critics in his day, but lets not forget he presided over America's transformation from a country in financial and social ruin, to the dominant military and economic power in the world. All that and he kicked Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito's collective ass for good measure. That's not spin.

From a US perspective, no. But realistically, from a global perspective; yes, very much so. WW2 was sort of a big joint effort... ;)

How Bush Jnr can win: Simply his Afghan response.
You spin "911" as an attack on the US, "an act of war by a foreign power". Spin the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban is a direct and successful response to that, then down-play Iraq as not being relevant; perhaps it was an ambitious follow up that was great in that it got rid of evil Saddam? :)

Of course a Terrorist act by a fringe bunch of loonies with only a tenant/landlord relationship to the Taliban, realistically makes the scenario meaningless, and the fact that Iraq is in worse straights now than ever under (the very truly bad) Saddam is irrelevant. The point is that it can be spun and I bet some of you already half believe it.

ozoneocean

bobhhh
FDR might have had strong critics in his day, but lets not forget he presided over America's transformation from a country in financial and social ruin, to the dominant military and economic power in the world. All that and he kicked Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito's collective ass for good measure. That's not spin.

From a US perspective, no. But realistically, from a global perspective; yes, very much so. WW2 was sort of a big joint effort... ;)

How Bush Jnr can win: Simply his Afghan response.
You spin "911" as an attack on the US, "an act of war by a foreign power". Spin the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban is a direct and successful response to that, then down-play Iraq as not being relevant; perhaps it was an ambitious follow up that was great in that it got rid of evil Saddam? :)

Of course a Terrorist act by a fringe bunch of loonies with only a tenant/landlord relationship to the Taliban, realistically makes the scenario meaningless, and the fact that Iraq is in worse straights now than ever under (the very truly bad) Saddam is irrelevant. The point is that it can be spun and I bet some of you already half believe it.

Perhaps, I won't pretend the American people aren't capable of that level of gullibility. I just think Jr has a lot more to surmount than most presidents.

Sorry if this is kind off topic, or if it was discussed.

But I (since im not a US citizen) see the US government pushing and accusing everyone (Irak, Iran, Korea....and China?) of having nuclear power while enforcing the other countries to dismantle them, yet the US has a huge nuclear power and is not willing to dismantle it because it fears everyone else will attack them.... but isnt that the same fear the rest of the world has with the US?.. after all, if they invaded Irak, they can invade others as well.

For the worst part, the US did use nuclear force on japan's civilians in the past, so what can someone like or worst than bush do in the future?

The other thing i see is that the US government implies that they defend democracy and that's what they wanted to enforce in Irak (and other countries with different ways of government) because they lived in dictatorship... yet they enforced it by killing everyone and destroying everything ^_^

BTW: im not a US hater.

You might consider starting a new thread with a short list of questions on this issue and see what happens. I tried to develop a comprehensive answer but the reply became huge and still didn't really work.

Heh. Glenfx has an excellent point. The trouble is that when people raise those issues they're seen as a terrorist supporter, anti US, or whatever, it happens most of the time. :(

My simple answer is this: It's like that because the US is a dominant power. Dominant powers get to be where they are because they dominate, but all powers seek to dominate so every country is a rival to the US. Rivals are threats, but some powers are less threatening than others; allies for instance. People who won't be dominated are enemies: Arab nations, Russia, China, Iran...

Every country in a position of dominance will always see itself much like an aristocrat: Born to rule, "rule by right of birth". And they of course will view the world from their own perspective: what we say and do is good and right and free; what you say is wrong, not free, and evil.

---------------------------
Simpler still: Mechanics of power and an absolute lack of perspective.
But if Cuba or Tibet were dominant instead, it'd still be the same story.