I had to skim the article. I'm still unclear what it means to put sanctions against a military unit within a sovereign nation.
Although Iran may in reality be a bigger threat than Pre-Invasion Iraq , depending on what it really intends, I don't see the American people or Congress supporting an expansion of the war without an unquestionable Pearl Harbor-like attack upon us or our forces. Iranian Army support for rogue cells in Iraq, is probably very true, but the government is not making that case in a clear enough way that it overrides distrust in the current administration. I think the American people and our political machines would finally revolt in protest to a war that isnt clearly sold.
What it means is that we have more or less declared the military of Iran to be an enemy, with all the trappings that go with it. So if you were to go hand an Iranian soldier a burrito, you could be charged with treason.
Location: I've come to love this American giant, viewing it as the most misunderstood, most underrated city in the world.
Thursday, October 25th, 2007 - 3:55pm
Morrolan wrote:
Irongut wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
...So if you were to go hand an Iranian soldier a burrito, you could be charged with treason.
What if I hide some haberneros in the burrito?
"We'll beat them from the inside out!"
Shock and ow! Double burn!
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
We're already spread too thin for a war with Iran to be practical. And public opinion of such an action doesn't seem terribly favorable. But if we can provoke them to attack our troops in Iraq or some such, well then we'd have no choice but to do something about it, right?
To be honest, I don't understand where the administration is going with this Iran business unless the goal is to stick the almost inevitably Democratic next president with an even more impossible situation than already exists. Perhaps they are just looking for some sort of a definitive "win" against nuclear proliferation with which to end this presidential term. But although messing with Iran isn't likely to drag China into the picture like a confrontation with North Korea might, it still doesn't seem like a terribly quick and easy situation to resolve, to say the least. Then again, neither did Iraq but we attacked them anyway, so who knows what will happen.
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
Iran has three times the population of Iraq, is much larger, and has a much more homogenous population, especially with regard to their views towards the United States. Their active-duty military outnumbers ours roughly 2 to 1, and the odds would be somewhere around 5 to 1 or higher for any force we were actually able to send in. Any sizeable ground invasion would be dangerously foolish.
The most likely choice would be an airstrike against the Iranian nuclear facilities, as I'm sure you've read about. The Iranian counter to this is composed of several layers of defense - hardened facilities, anti-aircraft defenses, and intense infantry patrols around the nuclear facilities to block infiltration by U.S. special forces (which is essentially required for accurately targeting attacks against hardened facilities). If the facilities are sited well, they could make it extremely difficult for us to attack them effectively.
Much depends on the competence of the Iranian military, which is a big unknown at this point. There's been some speculation that they are, in fact, attempting to provoke a small-scale asymmetric confrontation with the United States in order to increase their standing in the region. If they fail at this, and a larger scale conflict, the best Iranian strategy would be composed of three separate responses:
1) Strike at our naval forces in the Gulf and try to score a carrier. If they can knock out a carrier, this substantially reduces the American air assets that can be deployed against them, and would be a huge political victory. The tactic employed here would be overwhelming the task force defenses with a single large ship-to-ship missile strike, backed up by ballistic missiles with chemical warheads and subs attacking our anti-sub assets. This is their best bet in any confrontation - a single large, coordinated strike.
2) Strike at our space-based assets if possible. They certainly have the technical capability to put a few missiles into space, and have a space-capable launch vehicle, but it's unknown if they have the capability to accurately target satellites. The target is very high-value though, as it would drastically degrade U.S. intelligence with respect to their military capabilities and positioning.
3) Asymmetric contact with American forces in Iraq. There would be much to gain here if they could decisively defeat and drive out American forces from at least part of Iraq. Again, whether or not they are capable of large-scale asymmetric operations is an open question. The border is closely watched, but also riddled with well-established smuggling routes. Iranian equipment has been turning up in American operations, but of course it's not clear if that's intentional or just opportunistic. A few thousand competent troops could make a big difference in our current operations.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA. MaverickDago wrote:
Only commies pee "urine" or the devils cocktail as we call it, real Americans exude cold crisp light beer.
The burrito example is kinda reaching. But it will broaden the list of people that can be classified as "suspective terrorist". Which will justify more wire taps, arrests and finacial seizures.
This is some what off the subject.
Quote:
Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut
What the hell is an "independent democrat"???? I'd like to know because I've always felt I was a liberal in conservative skin that can't make up my mind.
He's an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Connecticut must be famous for cross-dressers. Between Lieberman's thinly disguised neocon antics and Chris Shay's complete flip flopping on the Iraq War, I'm starting to think that the Constitution State should be the setting for the Birdcage sequel.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
3) Asymmetric contact with American forces in Iraq. There would be much to gain here if they could decisively defeat and drive out American forces from at least part of Iraq. Again, whether or not they are capable of large-scale asymmetric operations is an open question. The border is closely watched, but also riddled with well-established smuggling routes. Iranian equipment has been turning up in American operations, but of course it's not clear if that's intentional or just opportunistic. A few thousand competent troops could make a big difference in our current operations
Aside from the last bit, this has been happening for years.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
Did anyone read the new emergency war funding bill for Iraq that was asked recently? Inside all that money was $88 million to retrofit our existing B2 bombers with bunker busting bomb racks as asked from field commanders, but not for targets in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
Haven't they had a naval battlegroup parked out there for who knows how long? It'll probably start with shelling and airstrikes.
Connecticut must be famous for cross-dressers. Between Lieberman's thinly disguised neocon antics and Chris Shay's complete flip flopping on the Iraq War, I'm starting to think that the Constitution State should be the setting for the Birdcage sequel.
I was born and raised in CT. and I can say that Paleo, your powers of observation are still quite honed.
Location: I've come to love this American giant, viewing it as the most misunderstood, most underrated city in the world.
Friday, October 26th, 2007 - 1:16pm
Axon wrote:
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
Iran likes the "human wave" strategy you might be familiar with the Soviets using against Germans. It was effective enough against Iraq (and is good for building outrage against enemies who butcher your sons, fathers, and brothers by the hundred or thousand), but should work even better against the US, as the voters are unlikely to be able to stomach a drawn-out mess like that.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Iran likes the "human wave" strategy you might be familiar with the Soviets using against Germans. It was effective enough against Iraq (and is good for building outrage against enemies who butcher your sons, fathers, and brothers by the hundred or thousand), but should work even better against the US, as the voters are unlikely to be able to stomach a drawn-out mess like that.
Location: I've come to love this American giant, viewing it as the most misunderstood, most underrated city in the world.
Friday, October 26th, 2007 - 3:26pm
Staats wrote:
I think US voters are fine as long as it's the other guys dying.
Statistically, we haven't done much dying since WWII.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
1) Strike at our naval forces in the Gulf and try to score a carrier. If they can knock out a carrier, this substantially reduces the American air assets that can be deployed against them, and would be a huge political victory. The tactic employed here would be overwhelming the task force defenses with a single large ship-to-ship missile strike, backed up by ballistic missiles with chemical warheads and subs attacking our anti-sub assets. This is their best bet in any confrontation - a single large, coordinated strike.
I do agree that our naval forces are probably the weakest link over there right now, but chemical weapons? I don't think they'd go that far, as that would invite WMD retaliation or at least tactical nukes.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
I had to skim the article. I'm still unclear what it means to put sanctions against a military unit within a sovereign nation.
Although Iran may in reality be a bigger threat than Pre-Invasion Iraq , depending on what it really intends, I don't see the American people or Congress supporting an expansion of the war without an unquestionable Pearl Harbor-like attack upon us or our forces. Iranian Army support for rogue cells in Iraq, is probably very true, but the government is not making that case in a clear enough way that it overrides distrust in the current administration. I think the American people and our political machines would finally revolt in protest to a war that isnt clearly sold.
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
What it means is that we have more or less declared the military of Iran to be an enemy, with all the trappings that go with it. So if you were to go hand an Iranian soldier a burrito, you could be charged with treason.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
What if I hide some haberneros in the burrito?
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
"We'll beat them from the inside out!"
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
I posted somethings about it here.
Irongut: Here is a summary of everything so far in video so you can be lazy.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Shock and ow! Double burn!
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Thanks Edwin. You'd make a great Cliff Notes writer
Yes, the hidden habernero's could be a pre-emptive atomic (sauce) strike.
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
Step 2: Ask UN for permission but ignore it anyways?
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Seeing as we have a few people in the US military here and some good observers, are ground troops even on the table or would any incursion have to be airstrikes and nothing else? In other words, are there even the numbers there for any sort of campaign?
SteamID: Coyler
Xbox Live: Coyler
The UN? I thought the Bush Admin stopped taking them seriously a looong time ago...
Take me home, Bubbles.
That's why they ignore it.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
I'm just surprised they had the courtesy to ask in the first place
Take me home, Bubbles.
We're already spread too thin for a war with Iran to be practical. And public opinion of such an action doesn't seem terribly favorable. But if we can provoke them to attack our troops in Iraq or some such, well then we'd have no choice but to do something about it, right?
To be honest, I don't understand where the administration is going with this Iran business unless the goal is to stick the almost inevitably Democratic next president with an even more impossible situation than already exists. Perhaps they are just looking for some sort of a definitive "win" against nuclear proliferation with which to end this presidential term. But although messing with Iran isn't likely to drag China into the picture like a confrontation with North Korea might, it still doesn't seem like a terribly quick and easy situation to resolve, to say the least. Then again, neither did Iraq but we attacked them anyway, so who knows what will happen.
Iran has three times the population of Iraq, is much larger, and has a much more homogenous population, especially with regard to their views towards the United States. Their active-duty military outnumbers ours roughly 2 to 1, and the odds would be somewhere around 5 to 1 or higher for any force we were actually able to send in. Any sizeable ground invasion would be dangerously foolish.
The most likely choice would be an airstrike against the Iranian nuclear facilities, as I'm sure you've read about. The Iranian counter to this is composed of several layers of defense - hardened facilities, anti-aircraft defenses, and intense infantry patrols around the nuclear facilities to block infiltration by U.S. special forces (which is essentially required for accurately targeting attacks against hardened facilities). If the facilities are sited well, they could make it extremely difficult for us to attack them effectively.
Much depends on the competence of the Iranian military, which is a big unknown at this point. There's been some speculation that they are, in fact, attempting to provoke a small-scale asymmetric confrontation with the United States in order to increase their standing in the region. If they fail at this, and a larger scale conflict, the best Iranian strategy would be composed of three separate responses:
1) Strike at our naval forces in the Gulf and try to score a carrier. If they can knock out a carrier, this substantially reduces the American air assets that can be deployed against them, and would be a huge political victory. The tactic employed here would be overwhelming the task force defenses with a single large ship-to-ship missile strike, backed up by ballistic missiles with chemical warheads and subs attacking our anti-sub assets. This is their best bet in any confrontation - a single large, coordinated strike.
2) Strike at our space-based assets if possible. They certainly have the technical capability to put a few missiles into space, and have a space-capable launch vehicle, but it's unknown if they have the capability to accurately target satellites. The target is very high-value though, as it would drastically degrade U.S. intelligence with respect to their military capabilities and positioning.
3) Asymmetric contact with American forces in Iraq. There would be much to gain here if they could decisively defeat and drive out American forces from at least part of Iraq. Again, whether or not they are capable of large-scale asymmetric operations is an open question. The border is closely watched, but also riddled with well-established smuggling routes. Iranian equipment has been turning up in American operations, but of course it's not clear if that's intentional or just opportunistic. A few thousand competent troops could make a big difference in our current operations.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
MaverickDago wrote:
The burrito example is kinda reaching. But it will broaden the list of people that can be classified as "suspective terrorist". Which will justify more wire taps, arrests and finacial seizures.
This is some what off the subject.
What the hell is an "independent democrat"???? I'd like to know because I've always felt I was a liberal in conservative skin that can't make up my mind.
Go for their eyes boo
He's an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Why not just fund Kurdish marxists to do our dirty work for us? Oh yeah, the Israelis already thought of that.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
A Democrat who lost in a Democrat primary because he's really a Neocon, ran as an independent, and won.
I generated a virtual world in the toilet bowl this morning.
-- Podunk on the PS3's mystical, magical abilities
Yeah, that's pretty much it. He's a DINO.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Connecticut must be famous for cross-dressers. Between Lieberman's thinly disguised neocon antics and Chris Shay's complete flip flopping on the Iraq War, I'm starting to think that the Constitution State should be the setting for the Birdcage sequel.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Aside from the last bit, this has been happening for years.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
Did anyone read the new emergency war funding bill for Iraq that was asked recently? Inside all that money was $88 million to retrofit our existing B2 bombers with bunker busting bomb racks as asked from field commanders, but not for targets in Iraq or Afghanistan.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Haven't they had a naval battlegroup parked out there for who knows how long? It'll probably start with shelling and airstrikes.
Gamer Tag: Rantyr
I was born and raised in CT. and I can say that Paleo, your powers of observation are still quite honed.
Go for their eyes boo
Iran likes the "human wave" strategy you might be familiar with the Soviets using against Germans. It was effective enough against Iraq (and is good for building outrage against enemies who butcher your sons, fathers, and brothers by the hundred or thousand), but should work even better against the US, as the voters are unlikely to be able to stomach a drawn-out mess like that.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
The M1028 Canister round.
Why? Because ideas like grapeshot never go away, they just get a longer range.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
We're already at war with Iran. We've always been at war with Iran. Get with the program, people!
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
I think US voters are fine as long as it's the other guys dying.
Xbox Live: StaatsM
Statistically, we haven't done much dying since WWII.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector