PDA

View Full Version : Can America take down Iran in a war?



Pages : [1] 2

Spongegod
23 Apr 08,, 06:05
Or will it turn into another Iraq? Another Vietnam? America isn't at Cold War levels anymore...they can't even handle Iraq...how will they take down Iran?

cape_royds
23 Apr 08,, 07:53
Depends what you mean by "take down."

The USA can certainly destroy Iran as a functional state: destroying Iran's regular forces, demolishing its economy, and devastating its cities and towns.

Whether the USA could successfully replace the current Iranian government with a self-sustaining friendly client regime is, however, quite a different question. That would require a long and costly war of occupation--possible but probably not worth it.

Try deterrence instead.

cuba
23 Apr 08,, 13:09
I don't think America has the capability to occupy Iran since it is already so overstretched. I agree with the rest of cape royds

Castellano
23 Apr 08,, 23:41
I don't think invasion/occupation is on anybody's table. The iranian question is actually the iranian nuclear question. We have been living for years with state sponsored terrorism from Iran, but nukes bring the whole thing into a new level. The US can certainly take down the sites, and there is nothing militarily that Iran can do about it. But their main asset for retaliation are those sleeping cells....

cuba
24 Apr 08,, 00:17
I don't think bombing iran will achieve much in the long run. In thirty or so years time, when America might no have the capability to enforce any sanctions on Iran, this "rogue state" would have recovered from a strike and would be more than capable of acquiring a bomb.

Although it may well be too late now, i think diplomacy is/was the only solution.

Either that or removing the current government from power... apparently half of iran's population is under the age of 24.

I'm all over the place today. Hopefully POL1101 will change that.

lwarmonger
24 Apr 08,, 02:04
I don't think bombing iran will achieve much in the long run. In thirty or so years time, when America might no have the capability to enforce any sanctions on Iran, this "rogue state" would have recovered from a strike and would be more than capable of acquiring a bomb.

Which means we bomb them again? Or even nuke them? I don't see how thirty years really changes our respective military capabilities except more in our favor (barring Iranian development as a nuclear power).



Although it may well be too late now, i think diplomacy is/was the only solution.

You would probably have said the same thing in 1938.



Either that or removing the current government from power... apparently half of iran's population is under the age of 24.


Regime change is not something the US can enforce on Iran right now, and there is nowhere near enough support for an internal revolution to succeed.

imishin
24 Apr 08,, 04:49
Why do anything with Iran anyways? According to a relatively recently released US intelligence report Iran stopped its nuclear weapons proliferation program in 2004. So you're going to bomb someone based on a hunch? Or are you just looking for excuses to spend billions on that missile shield of yours? A ridiculous undertaking since even if Iran does come up with a bomb it is kind of impossible to fit a 1st generation device (like the one N Korea has) on a missile, it has to be dropped from a bomber.

On topic: Yes I am sure America can take down Iran in a war, but as a consequence, as always, it will create more terrorists than it kills.

Castellano
24 Apr 08,, 05:38
"Why do anything with Iran anyways?... A ridiculous undertaking since even if Iran does come up with a bomb it is kind of impossible to fit a 1st generation device (like the one N Korea has) on a missile, it has to be dropped from a bomber."

imishin


Or go off inside an innocent looking container as it arrives Rotterdam Harbor, with catastrophic harm.

Would the Iranian regime do something like that?

Given the right circumstances, I really wouldn't want to find out. And also, I don't want to know how the Iranian regime protests would sound in the middle of another cartoon row, given the knowledge that Iran is possesion of nukes. But pretty menacing I'm sure. Pretty menacing for our entire civilization, which certainly includes Russia.

Russia's position in this matter doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me seriously that it serves Russia's national interest to help Iran buy time at the UN and elsewhere?

The russian foreign nomenklatura must be quite sure this won't ever turn against them, right?

It is really quite puzzling to think why the hell are they doing this. Even considering Putin et al. outlook, the pleasure of watching the americans, israelis and west europeans running into trouble does not compensate the pain derived from the risks associated.

Perhaps there a is complex power game that I'm missing, but I doubt it.

It really demands an explanation.

Having said that, Russia's offer to produce the fuel, a couple of years ago I think, was the best diplomatic way out of this.

cuba
24 Apr 08,, 07:39
Which means we bomb them again? Or even nuke them? I don't see how thirty years really changes our respective military capabilities except more in our favor (barring Iranian development as a nuclear power)..

If it took decades for Britain to loose it's naval supremacy it's not hard to believe that the US can loose a lot of military power in such a short period of time.


You would probably have said the same thing in 1938..

You can't really compare 1938 to 2008 and you can't say that you wouldn't have hoped for the same thing in 1938. Circumstances change. People learn from theirs' and history's mistakes. Diplomacy has also improved markedly since then and successful diplomatic solutions have been proven to work in the most unlikely of places.

I don't think nuking iran will do much for the US's already-poor reputation and i do think there are alternatives. I'm not saying that i disagree with any military response period (for example i agree with the invasion of afghanistan).

It's not like Iran can do anything with a nuclear bomb anyway (as previously mentioned).

m1tch311
24 Apr 08,, 20:46
Right now US army's stretched too thin. Now if the US pulled some outa Korea........ The Regime in Iran is increasingly unpopular with the young generation who i think would be willing to help the US establish a friendly state.

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 08,, 20:48
There's only two brigades in South Korea.

m1tch311
24 Apr 08,, 20:51
I mean more monatary wise, a lot of US money gets poured into south Korea.

zraver
24 Apr 08,, 23:45
I mean more monatary wise, a lot of US money gets poured into south Korea.

Uhm no.

m1tch311
25 Apr 08,, 01:18
actually yes.. How do you think the US affords its lavish tip top facilities in south korea? The south korean say they help but not really thats all US defense spending. Its estimated to be like 15 billion a year

Shek
25 Apr 08,, 03:26
Right now US army's stretched too thin. Now if the US pulled some outa Korea........ The Regime in Iran is increasingly unpopular with the young generation who i think would be willing to help the US establish a friendly state.

We've already pulled a brigade out of South Korea and sent it stateside due to Iraq.

Shek
25 Apr 08,, 03:27
actually yes.. How do you think the US affords its lavish tip top facilities in south korea? The south korean say they help but not really thats all US defense spending. Its estimated to be like 15 billion a year

Not so much. It might pay to listen to OoE and Z.

Transformation Underway in South Korea (http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/06/22/3776-transformation-underway-in-south-korea/)

Bella
25 Apr 08,, 07:27
Can the U.S. destroy Iran if it came to all out war!!........YES!!......of coarse!!
Can the U.S. occupy Iran like Iraq right now.........NO!!

The U.S. can easily destroy Iran's' military without a doubt! That is an easy question.

Roosveltrepub
25 Apr 08,, 17:53
of course we can the problems start after we defeat their army

Zemco
25 Apr 08,, 22:54
Or will it turn into another Iraq? Another Vietnam? America isn't at Cold War levels anymore...they can't even handle Iraq...how will they take down Iran?

It's fairly straight forward. The attacks on alleged nuclear weapons facilities will be diversions to conceal the real target, the oil and natural gas rich province of Khuzehstan.

Phase I (3 Hours)

Extra-Theater Air - B-2 and B-117 aircraft will attack alleged nuclear weapons facilities at Arak, Nantaz and Esfahan as a diversion, effectively pinning some Iranian air units in the north to protect Tabriz, Tehran and other facilities and sites. Other B-2 and B-117 aircraft will attack primary airfields in southern Iran to prevent air squadrons from deploying to their forward operating bases. B-2s will target C2 and power generation facilities while B-52s launch cruise missiles at other targets.

In-Theater Air - Iraqi based F-16s and F-15s will conduct CAPs along the Iraqi-Iranian border, while Kuwaiti based units conduct the first 16 of 32 sorties in the Zagros Mountains against bridges and road passes. Additional sorties assisted by special operations units will target Iranian recon units on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border units who perform a function similar if not identical to the 2nd ACR, 11th ACR, 16/5 Lancers and others in the old "1 k Zone."

Carrier 1 - Primary mission is air cover for ground operations. SEAD missions will eliminate air defenses while F-18s attack the barracks where most if not all Iranian troops will be asleep at 0330 (zulu). The 2 straight leg infantry divisions, the tank division and the mechanized infantry division will be essentially rendered combat ineffective in a matter of minutes.

Carrier 2 - Primary missions is SEAD and air superiority.

Carrier 3 (Arabian Sea) - Primary missions is SEAD, air superiority and attacks on forward operating bases and C2 targets.

Group 1 - Supporting ground forces in Khuzehstan will launch cruise missiles at ammunition storage areas and fuel depots reducing combat by Iranian forces in the province to less than 30 days maximum, and attack other ground based threats.

Groups 2 & 3 - Launching cruise missile attacks on shore based anti-ship batteries, air defense units and Iranian naval vessels in their area.

French carrier group/British surface group - Seek and destroy Iranian naval vessels, shore-based anti-ship missile batteries, air defense units and protect civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf.

ARG 1 - a marine division will be airlifted to the eastern approaches as a blocking force. A marine amphibious brigade will establish and secure a beach-head to bring their armor, artillery and air defense ashore.

ARG 2 - a marine division will be airlifted to secure the only 2 bridges crossing the Karun River. The MAB will land and secure the port facilities.

Army Group - 5 brigade combat teams will race across the border to link up with the marine division and begin river crossing operations.

Phase II (6 Hours)

Extra-Theater Air - Continued attacks will degrade Iranian and and ground units in the operational area.

In-Theater Air - CAP continues and the remaining 16 sorties in the Zagros Mountains are completed. Now the only way into Khuzehstan Province to reinforce or resupply whatever remains of Iranian ground forces is through the eastern approaches, a very narrow area where Iranian units can be cannalized and destroyed en masse quickly with little effort.

Carrier 1 - Guided by special operations units, F-18s continue attacking the hapless Iranian units as survivors of the initial attack attempt to marshal and organize. Destruction of division supply trains, ammunition and fuel depots reduces the fighting time to a maximum of 15 days.

Carrier 2 - Continues air superiority.

Carrier 3 (Arabian Sea) - Continues air superiority and attacks on targets of opportunity.

Groups 1, 2 & 3 - Continues with air defense, destruction of remaining Iranian naval vessels and shore based threats.

French carrier group/British surface group - Seek and destroy Iranian naval vessels, shore-based anti-ship missile batteries, air defense units and protect civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf.

Ground Forces - Having completed the river crossing, now move to close with and destroy remaining Iranian army and militia units.

From that point it's more of the same. The US will have a clear view of any Iranian units who would foolishly attempt to move north along the coastal roads or south from Tabriz/Tehran and enter the province. It would be like the Highway of Death (x 100).

The US will claim "mission accomplished" with end of the "nuclear weapons threat" and the security of Iraq enhanced with the Revolutionary Guard militias degraded/destroyed. It will claim it was necessary to invade Khuzehstan to prevent disruption of oil and natural gas supplies.

The province has 80% of Iran's oil and 4% of the world's oil, and too bad for the Japanese and Chinese since all of it will now be sold in US$ which will help prop up the sagging US$ against other currencies, especially the Euro.

Iran will have only the 20% of its oil (1% of the world's oil) in the provinces of West Azir and East Azir bordering Azerbaijan. Iran will overnight change from a net exporter of oil to a net importer of oil, and with the loss of oil and natural gas revenues from Khuzehstan, Iran's economy will collapse as it won't be able to pay the monthly salaries to the government and military, and will be forced to cut back its massive monthly social welfare payments for food stamps/subsidies, health care, rent and unemployment benefits.

The beautiful thing is that the US can promise the Kurds, Lors, Baluchs and others that if they rise up against the government, the US will support them. And just like Iraq, they will fall for the US bullsh*t hook, line and sinker and rise up and the US will do nothing but laugh while a few hundred thousand Iranian Kurds, Lors and Baluchs are slaughtered, then the US will claim a "No-Fly Zone" is needed and the US, UK and France will set up airbases in Iranian Kurdistan and Baluchistan so that the US can maintain a presence in Iran for an indefinite period until a more opportune time presents itself for the US to invade and effect regime change, unless a friendly regime comes to power before sometime along the way (and that was the US game plan in Iraq and it worked so there's no reason to believe it won't work a second time).

As far as Khuzehstan, those are not Persians, they're Arabs. You might be asking WTF? What are Arabs doing in Iran? Well, you'd have to have a seance to discuss that with the drunken fat slob pig Churchill, since he drew the borders.

90% of the population in Khuzehstan are Arabic tribes and clans whose blood kin are in Kuwait and Iraq. They have attempted 14 times in the last 100 years to break free from Iran, most recently during the 1979 "revolution" and again during the Iraq-Iran War. They would view the US as liberators, at least initially. Leave it to an idiot ivy school graduate to screw things up, but the best thing for the US would be to allow a referendum to see if the Arabs want to unite with Kuwait, unite with Iraq (or both), or form their own country.

dark-alias
27 Apr 08,, 01:24
we were able to do that because of the success of Operation Foal Eagle. why spend sustainment money when you dont have too. and to the iran ? it would be almost to easy for the U.S. to take them down and leave them lets say in an Afghan situation before we went there. Step 1. destroy there conventional forces, topple gov't. etc.etc..... step 2 once intial phase complete rape iran of all natrual resources, tech. its educated, and get rid of anyone who wont come freely, just total deprivation of anything worth really anything in todays standing and then a sytematic pull-out so instead of trying to build a nation we strip them of the ability to be a nation. but only if america was a little more extreme. I could go on into some serious details but from my point of view this gives the broad example.

zraver
27 Apr 08,, 03:26
It's fairly straight forward. The attacks on alleged nuclear weapons facilities will be diversions to conceal the real target, the oil and natural gas rich province of Khuzehstan. et al

Welcome to the Board Tom Clancy.

Now back to reality.

The facts-

We cannot airlift 2 marine divisions. hell we cant even concentrate 2 Marine divisions without tipping the US's hand.

Iran is not making A-bombs yet, but has its best SAM assets located around these targets. The smart move is to borrow a page from Nimitz and bypass them and concentrate on more important areas.

Iran has said that any use of the GCC nations or other Iranian neighbors by the US in an attack on Iran will bring retribution. ASAIK, all have said no to the US conducting offensive operations from thier territory.

Iran has at least several hundred and possibly several thousands SRBM and IRBM some are true ballistic missiles with at least limited MIRV capability.

Iran has one of the worlds largest supplies of sea mines- inlcuding some rocket mines.

Iran has hundreds of speed boats and nearly 100 FAC's that are nearly ideal for a Persian Gulf region littoral fight.

Iran has hundreds of jet aircraft including some that are a very real threat to US assets.

Iran has said it will block the shipment of tankers out of the Persian Gulf if war breaks out.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces occupy the Thunds and several militarized offshore platforms.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards members may well be suicidal, this includes runs to hijack tankers and sink them across the shipping lanes (physical block) and or drive up insurance premiums (economic block) or possibly run them at the GCC terminals.

Any overt surge by US forces including flights of B-2's lifting off from Missouri will be obvious and tip the US hand.

Iran has a plethora of anti-shipping missiles including a few hundred modern or semi modern large missiles that can threaten any surface vessel they find.

Now given those facts, if the US decides that war is the better option what will the US have to use.

If one or more VLCC+ sized vessels gets ripped apart it will be like a nuke going off in the gulf as far as ecologic damage is concerned.

Iran will probably pop missiles at Israel.

Syria might attack Israel.

6 dollar a gallon gas will be a bargain.

Offensively

4 carriers- 2 in the Gulf, 1 replacement enroute, and 1 snuck into the area (yes you can sneak a carrier). At least 1 carrier has to remain inside the Gulf to avoid giving the game away. The carrier group in the Gulf might well be doomed no matter what we do and that could mean thousands of US dead in days not years.

USS Ohio (154 cruise missile complement)

What ever planes are on normal rotation at Deigo Garcia

4 or some MARG/ARG/MEF's attached to the carriers.

about 140 Hornets and Super Hornets, a couple dozen Sea Cobras, possibly a few AV-8's, some Sea Kings

a couple of seal teams,

several extra attack subs besides whats with the carriers.

Defensively

Gulf based tac-air to protect the ingulf carrier and merchant shipping.

At least 1 Aegis system plus THAAD/PAC batteries.

JSTARS/AWACs/RIVETs. at least for the in gulf defensive fight.

Possibly- allied nations (UK/Fr/GCC) forces for protection of merchant shipping.

Now Iran does have several weaknesses. It's coastal radar net is not 100% an the radar net is even weaker in the interior.

Iranian forces on the Thunds or platforms cannot re-up thier combat power.

Iranian sea assets are individually weak and the majority will not be at sea.


wave 1 if you want to call it waves won't give a damn about Iraq. The Army is on its own. The only support it will get will be its own Apaches. Gola #1 will alays be keeping the Straits of Hormuz open.

Ground- be taking down Abu Musa and the other Thund Islands (USMC assault) and the off shore platforms (SEAL). These islands and platforms are the only place Iran can use the majority of its shorter legged anti-shipping missiles or provide reliable course correction data to the bigger missiles that can be fired from Iran proper. iran has spent a decade digging in about 4-6000 Guards troops here.

Sea- The carrier planes and attack subs will be trying to sink as much of the Iranian navy as possible in port. The subs will hunt the Iranian subs first. Cluster bombs will be the weapon of chose vs the speed boat sheds and boat crew barracks. Larger vessels will get individual missiles. However the bulk of USN air power will be doing SEAD work.

Air and Command/Control- USS Ohio several other attack subs and what ever bombers the air force has at DG will be dumping tomahawks across Iran with the emphasis on F-14, F-4, and Su-24 fields. Thy will also be hitting radio/TV transmitters, server farms, and telephone exchanges to induce friction into the Iranian communications.

TopHatter
27 Apr 08,, 12:46
Welcome to the Board Tom Clancy.

Now back to reality.

The facts-



LOL...good one. :))

You forgot one other problem with his scenario...the F-117 is now history.

Officer of Engineers
27 Apr 08,, 14:13
It's fairly straight forward.If this is an example of your forward strategic thinking, I will be learning to speak Farsi right now.

Zemco
01 May 08,, 17:49
You forgot one other problem with his scenario...the F-117 is now history.

I wasn't in the air farce, but surely you're capable of adapting, perhaps using F-22s, so I don't see how it would be a problem, unless Canadians were on the ground and US ANG units were flying.

S2
01 May 08,, 18:17
"...unless Canadians were on the ground and US ANG units were flying."

Who are you, you mindless prick, to make light of something like that in the course of a conversation?

Do you think this is a joke to us?

Walking Dead
01 May 08,, 18:36
Welcome to the Board Tom Clancy.

Now back to reality.

The facts-

We cannot airlift 2 marine divisions. hell we cant even concentrate 2 Marine divisions without tipping the US's hand.

Iran is not making A-bombs yet, but has its best SAM assets located around these targets. The smart move is to borrow a page from Nimitz and bypass them and concentrate on more important areas.

Iran has said that any use of the GCC nations or other Iranian neighbors by the US in an attack on Iran will bring retribution. ASAIK, all have said no to the US conducting offensive operations from thier territory.

Iran has at least several hundred and possibly several thousands SRBM and IRBM some are true ballistic missiles with at least limited MIRV capability.

Iran has one of the worlds largest supplies of sea mines- inlcuding some rocket mines.

Iran has hundreds of speed boats and nearly 100 FAC's that are nearly ideal for a Persian Gulf region littoral fight.

Iran has hundreds of jet aircraft including some that are a very real threat to US assets.

Iran has said it will block the shipment of tankers out of the Persian Gulf if war breaks out.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces occupy the Thunds and several militarized offshore platforms.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards members may well be suicidal, this includes runs to hijack tankers and sink them across the shipping lanes (physical block) and or drive up insurance premiums (economic block) or possibly run them at the GCC terminals.

Any overt surge by US forces including flights of B-2's lifting off from Missouri will be obvious and tip the US hand.

Iran has a plethora of anti-shipping missiles including a few hundred modern or semi modern large missiles that can threaten any surface vessel they find.

Now given those facts, if the US decides that war is the better option what will the US have to use.

If one or more VLCC+ sized vessels gets ripped apart it will be like a nuke going off in the gulf as far as ecologic damage is concerned.

Iran will probably pop missiles at Israel.

Syria might attack Israel.

6 dollar a gallon gas will be a bargain.

Offensively

4 carriers- 2 in the Gulf, 1 replacement enroute, and 1 snuck into the area (yes you can sneak a carrier). At least 1 carrier has to remain inside the Gulf to avoid giving the game away. The carrier group in the Gulf might well be doomed no matter what we do and that could mean thousands of US dead in days not years.

USS Ohio (154 cruise missile complement)

What ever planes are on normal rotation at Deigo Garcia

4 or some MARG/ARG/MEF's attached to the carriers.

about 140 Hornets and Super Hornets, a couple dozen Sea Cobras, possibly a few AV-8's, some Sea Kings

a couple of seal teams,

several extra attack subs besides whats with the carriers.

Defensively

Gulf based tac-air to protect the ingulf carrier and merchant shipping.

At least 1 Aegis system plus THAAD/PAC batteries.

JSTARS/AWACs/RIVETs. at least for the in gulf defensive fight.

Possibly- allied nations (UK/Fr/GCC) forces for protection of merchant shipping.

Now Iran does have several weaknesses. It's coastal radar net is not 100% an the radar net is even weaker in the interior.

Iranian forces on the Thunds or platforms cannot re-up thier combat power.

Iranian sea assets are individually weak and the majority will not be at sea.


wave 1 if you want to call it waves won't give a damn about Iraq. The Army is on its own. The only support it will get will be its own Apaches. Gola #1 will alays be keeping the Straits of Hormuz open.

Ground- be taking down Abu Musa and the other Thund Islands (USMC assault) and the off shore platforms (SEAL). These islands and platforms are the only place Iran can use the majority of its shorter legged anti-shipping missiles or provide reliable course correction data to the bigger missiles that can be fired from Iran proper. iran has spent a decade digging in about 4-6000 Guards troops here.

Sea- The carrier planes and attack subs will be trying to sink as much of the Iranian navy as possible in port. The subs will hunt the Iranian subs first. Cluster bombs will be the weapon of chose vs the speed boat sheds and boat crew barracks. Larger vessels will get individual missiles. However the bulk of USN air power will be doing SEAD work.

Air and Command/Control- USS Ohio several other attack subs and what ever bombers the air force has at DG will be dumping tomahawks across Iran with the emphasis on F-14, F-4, and Su-24 fields. Thy will also be hitting radio/TV transmitters, server farms, and telephone exchanges to induce friction into the Iranian communications.


Sir, great post! I may not have caught this but, what do you think our options are for a ground incursion from Iran-Iraq border? I am leaving this question open-ended purposely. In addition, given Iran's threat of retribution to any GC nation that assists US, to what extent do you think we will be able to use their resources?

Zemco
01 May 08,, 19:21
We cannot airlift 2 marine divisions. hell we cant even concentrate 2 Marine divisions without tipping the US's hand.

Sure it can, in fact the marines from the ARGs have been training in Kuwait for the last few years to do precisely that.

And so what if the US tips its hand?

Are you suggesting that:

1) Iranian tank divisions will enter the Indian Ocean and drive across the sea bottom and surface undetected in the delta attacking the marines from the rear?; or

2) Iranian units will tunnel under the Zagros Mountains over the next 40 years and surface in Khuzehstan to attack?; or

3) Iranian units will invade Iraq through Kurdistan then travel south to Basra, engaging and defeating US and multi-national forces before turning east to flank US units?


Iran has said that any use of the GCC nations or other Iranian neighbors by the US in an attack on Iran will bring retribution. ASAIK, all have said no to the US conducting offensive operations from thier territory.

No kidding. They aren't needed.


Iran has at least several hundred and possibly several thousands SRBM and IRBM some are true ballistic missiles with at least limited MIRV capability.

Okay, the Iranians launch from shore and the SRBMs land 75 miles out in the Persian Gulf water, go Boom! and lots of fishies die while the US sailors munch on popcorn.

Or,

The Iranians try to move undetected to an area close near the eastern approaches were they can launch and the marines can enjoy the fireworks from a safe distance while munching on MREs.

No such thing as a MIRVd IRBM, you know, it's the physics thing.

The Russians had an IRBM that was a MRV (that's M-R-V not M-I-R-V).

Iran's IRBMs don't work well anyway, in part because they still haven't figured out the "ballistic" part of "ballistic missile" so 50 that can't fly or 500,000 that can't fly makes no difference.

Besides, doesn't the US have the vaunted Patriot anti-anti-anti-anti-missile thingy? Heck an Arleigh Burke with a RIM-156 and a SPY-1D AS would work just as well.


Iran has one of the worlds largest supplies of sea mines- inlcuding some rocket mines.

So then why is the US navy still afloat in the Persian Gulf? Those mines won't do any good unless their deployed, and there's no doubt they are not, since carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups continually sail in, around and out of the Persian Gulf.


Iran has hundreds of speed boats and nearly 100 FAC's that are nearly ideal for a Persian Gulf region littoral fight.

Yes, and the US has Hawkeyes and a variety of surface search helicopters and submarines with sonar to locate them. So what? In a state of war the US will be shooting and asking questions later.


Iran has hundreds of jet aircraft including some that are a very real threat to US assets.

And the US has none? I would be the last person to down-play the threat of Iranian aircraft, but that's where stealth bombers come in to play. The Iranian air force is only effective if the squadrons can disperse to their forward operating bases. If the runways at the major bases get cratered, the squadrons cannot deploy and are no threat to the US.


Iran has said it will block the shipment of tankers out of the Persian Gulf if war breaks out.

And Roger Ellersbydorman of No 2 Clydall High Road said he'd pick his nose, so what?

Iran will not block the Straight of Hormuz.

Hello? Is there anybody out there? What do you all think navy personnel have been doing in the Persian Gulf on their deployments, playing shuffle board, having a circle-jerk or watching Cats!?

All they do is plot and track targets 24/7.


Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces occupy the Thunds and several militarized offshore platforms.

So? Aren't there Navy SEALs?

Okay, so we all know the SEALs would screw it up, so we'll send marines, rangers, special ops. Who cares?


Iranian Revolutionary Guards members may well be suicidal, this includes runs to hijack tankers and sink them across the shipping lanes (physical block) and or drive up insurance premiums (economic block) or possibly run them at the GCC terminals.

And Her Majesty's navy is going to sit around and watch? No, and neither is the US navy.

"Shi'a suicide bomber" is like an oxymoron. The Shi'a, with their shrines and saints and relics are like Eastern Orthodox and catholics. Suicide is a big taboo. No 72 virgins or romping in Allah-Land if you commit suicide.

Does anyone have any evidence of a Shi'a suicide attack with multiple confirmed sources, preferably independent sources (and global security/global research/Wayne Madsen and the other doofs don't count)?
Because I'm not aware of any suicide attacks carried out by Shi'a.

Sunni suicide attacks, sure, Sunni is nearly synonymous with Protestant. There are Protestant sects that dance with snakes or lick frogs or speak in tongues and what not, and Sunnis have the same sects. There's Pentacostals where the women wear dresses and don't cut their hair, and the Sunnis have the same sects.

Anyway, it would be physically impossible to block the Strait of Hormuz, if for no other reason than it would take hours to assemble enough tankers, and get them into position before being sunk.


Any overt surge by US forces including flights of B-2's lifting off from Missouri will be obvious and tip the US hand.

Obviously a newbie.

That's a problem that presents itself to the US air force, but contrary to what you might believe, they're keenly aware of that.

Regardless, the air force knows how to deal with it, which is why no one saw the B-2s or B-1s leave for Iraq, or saw them leave for Afghanistan, or the B-2s leave for Yugoslavia, or saw FB-111s or B-1s leave for the first Iraq war, or FB-111s leave for Libya.

I could move the B-2s from Whiteman to Guam or Diego Garcia and you wouldn't know anything about it was all over.


Iran has a plethora of anti-shipping missiles including a few hundred modern or semi modern large missiles that can threaten any surface vessel they find.

So what? All surface-to-surface anti-ship missile batteries have been tracked and targeted for the last 6 years. They'll be destroyed in the first 10 minutes of combat, without firing a missile.


Now given those facts, if the US decides that war is the better option what will the US have to use.

What facts? You're a little out of your league.


If one or more VLCC+ sized vessels gets ripped apart it will be like a nuke going off in the gulf as far as ecologic damage is concerned.

You might want to study the designs a little more carefully, or at least talk to the reactor crewman.


Iran will probably pop missiles at Israel.

Again, I see no evidence that Iran has figured out the "ballistic" part of "ballistic missile" or that the missiles have functioning conventional warheads.


Syria might attack Israel.

A Sunni country would attack Israel because why? A Shi'a country is under attack?

Gosh, if I was Sunni Syria and I did nothing, and Shi'a Iran collapsed into civil war, then Shi'a Iran couldn't fund the Shi'a Hezbollah that was up my Sunni ass 24/7 trying to take over my country, right?


6 dollar a gallon gas will be a bargain.

No, the US will have control of the oil, which is the objective of the conflict.


Offensively

4 carriers- 2 in the Gulf, 1 replacement enroute, and 1 snuck into the area (yes you can sneak a carrier). At least 1 carrier has to remain inside the Gulf to avoid giving the game away. The carrier group in the Gulf might well be doomed no matter what we do and that could mean thousands of US dead in days not years.

1,000s of US dead? Why? Is your mother cooking for them?

Shek
01 May 08,, 21:03
1,000s of US dead? Why? Is your mother cooking for them?

Why don't you take a time out for that childish retort. See you in 30 days.

S2
01 May 08,, 21:06
I move for permanence to his current status.

Walking Dead
01 May 08,, 21:10
I move for permanence to his current status.

I second the motion.

Shek
01 May 08,, 21:43
"Shi'a suicide bomber" is like an oxymoron. The Shi'a, with their shrines and saints and relics are like Eastern Orthodox and catholics. Suicide is a big taboo. No 72 virgins or romping in Allah-Land if you commit suicide.

Does anyone have any evidence of a Shi'a suicide attack with multiple confirmed sources, preferably independent sources (and global security/global research/Wayne Madsen and the other doofs don't count)?
Because I'm not aware of any suicide attacks carried out by Shi'a.

Hezbollah

m1tch311
01 May 08,, 21:58
The hezbos are Shias? idk that. Though they were mainly funded by syria or is that hamas?

Parihaka
01 May 08,, 22:44
The hezbos are Shias? idk that. Though they were mainly funded by syria or is that hamas?

Iran.
Here's a commentary from the time of the last Israel/Hezbollah war.
Mahmoud Sabit at PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mahmoud_sabit/2006/07/in_a_fragile_situation_engage.html)

m1tch311
01 May 08,, 22:50
thanks intresting

S2
01 May 08,, 23:00
Forgotten here is that the Alawites, though a shia minority, are the controlling element of Syrian power and have been well-established since Hafaz al-Assad.

Nothing is easily understood here.:))

citanon
02 May 08,, 05:40
Offensively

4 carriers- 2 in the Gulf, 1 replacement enroute, and 1 snuck into the area (yes you can sneak a carrier). At least 1 carrier has to remain inside the Gulf to avoid giving the game away. The carrier group in the Gulf might well be doomed no matter what we do and that could mean thousands of US dead in days not years.

Without knowing much about naval operations, it's not obvious we would lose an entire carrier group since these were able, in theory, to handle a Soviet air strike group back in the day and should have greater capabilities today from cooperative engagement and improved sensor, weapons, aircraft, etc. Granted, the Gulf area is highly constricted geographically.

Also, why does even 1 carrier have to remain inside the Gulf with air operations running from Iraq, Kuwait, and possibly Saudi Arabia? Iraq would have limited say in the matter, Kuwait and the Saudis are both driven to counter Iranian attainment of nuclear arms.

Not saying you are wrong. Just looking for enlightenment.

S2
02 May 08,, 15:34
Zraver's working on the assumption that G.C.C. states won't allow offensive ops from their soil. As such, the initial air campaign would largely be carried by off-shore carrier-based aircraft.

You suggest otherwise.

A nation's input matters. Should Iraq decline to permit offensive ops, as example, I'd hope we'd honor that decision. Once Iran reacts, we'll likely have all the authority and permission we need to operate from G.C.C. Saudi/Iraqi bases. Probably not beforehand.

I don't know that a carrier group needs to remain in the gulf to sustain maskirovka and I'm unsure that we need three carrier groups. How many carrier aircraft will it take to provoke Iran into observable action that will justify the use of G.C.C. bases, as example? If we are assured that all bets are off at that point and we'll have free use of these facilities following any Iranian retaliation, then our initial effort may be quite small- only sufficient to demand a forceful and obvious response by Iran.

citanon
02 May 08,, 19:15
Zraver's working on the assumption that G.C.C. states won't allow offensive ops from their soil. As such, the initial air campaign would largely be carried by off-shore carrier-based aircraft.

You suggest otherwise.

A nation's input matters. Should Iraq decline to permit offensive ops, as example, I'd hope we'd honor that decision. Once Iran reacts, we'll likely have all the authority and permission we need to operate from G.C.C. Saudi/Iraqi bases. Probably not beforehand.

I don't know that a carrier group needs to remain in the gulf to sustain maskirovka and I'm unsure that we need three carrier groups. How many carrier aircraft will it take to provoke Iran into observable action that will justify the use of G.C.C. bases, as example? If we are assured that all bets are off at that point and we'll have free use of these facilities following any Iranian retaliation, then our initial effort may be quite small- only sufficient to demand a forceful and obvious response by Iran.

I think the trouble with trying to provoke an Iranian response to justify full blown offensive operations from nearby states is that Iran's response would not only have to be forceful, and obvious, it would also have to be immediate and non-defensive. Unless offensive operations were sustained and effective, Iran could opt not to play that game and instead choose to ramp up insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation while seeking to strike at US support and escort ships and other targets of opportunity directly related to the striking groups. Israel's fight against Hezbollah last year and past NATO operations against Serbia seems to cast doubt on the ability of a pure air campaign to force Iran into strategic concessions, especially if the Iranians hunkered down and used political means to hamper US operations. In the present political climate, the ultimate duration of such a campaign in the absence of rash Iranian response is also likely to be short.

On the US side, even without explicit permission for offensive operations from their soil, presumably USAF tankers, support craft and defensive combat screens could allow one or two carrier groups positioned outside restricted waters of the Persian Gulf to sustain a higher tempo of offensive operations than they could alone. These could act in conjunction with long ranged bombers flown from outside the Middle East. With aid of the regional Combined Air Operations Center coordinating assets, maybe this could be quite seemless. Would such an operation do enough damage to Iran to force an immediate reaction?

Also, the CAOC is a fixed target at a fixed location. Could the Iranians seek to limit US air operations tempo via political means, then use the opportunity to attack that location with a concentrated ballistic missile strike? (I realize that this is not necessarily consistent with the hunker-down plan.)

Finally, would Israel initiate a new war against Hezbollah in coordination with US action?

snc128
02 May 08,, 19:21
Hezbollah

which Hezbollah you are refering to? because there are many... and to let you know, they arenot completely shi'a or sunni or even completely consist of muslims!

citanon
02 May 08,, 19:22
I think the trouble with trying to provoke an Iranian response to justify full blown offensive operations from nearby states is that Iran's response would not only have to be forceful, and obvious, it would also have to be immediate and non-defensive. Unless offensive operations were sustained and effective, Iran could opt not to play that game and instead choose to ramp up insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation while seeking to strike at US support and escort ships and other targets of opportunity directly related to the striking groups. Israel's fight against Hezbollah last year and past NATO operations against Serbia seems to cast doubt on the ability of a pure air campaign to force Iran into strategic concessions, especially if the Iranians hunkered down and used political means to hamper US operations. In the present political climate, the ultimate duration of such a campaign in the absence of rash Iranian response is also likely to be short.

On the US side, even without explicit permission for offensive operations from their soil, presumably USAF tankers, support craft and defensive combat screens could allow one or two carrier groups positioned outside restricted waters of the Persian Gulf to sustain a higher tempo of offensive operations than they could alone. These could act in conjunction with long ranged bombers flown from outside the Middle East. With aid of the regional Combined Air Operations Center coordinating assets, maybe this could be quite seemless. Would such an operation do enough damage to Iran to force an immediate reaction?

Also, the CAOC is a fixed target at a fixed location. Could the Iranians seek to limit US air operations tempo via political means, then use the opportunity to attack that location with a concentrated ballistic missile strike? (I realize that this is not necessarily consistent with the hunker-down plan.)

Finally, would Israel initiate a new war against Hezbollah in coordination with US action?

I guess, on the offensive side, the central questions for US planners are: What are the key pressure points and red lines for the Iranian leadership? What are the pillars of long term Iranian regional influence? Militarily, what are the most effective and sustainable means of attacking them?

snc128
02 May 08,, 19:28
Forgotten here is that the Alawites, though a shia minority, are the controlling element of Syrian power and have been well-established since Hafaz al-Assad.

Nothing is easily understood here.:))

no, Alawites are not a shi'a minority, nor the ruling power in Syria is Alawites. they call themselves Fallah,their sect in Turkey is named as Nusayri. and these Nusayris consider themselves as Alawite but has hardly relationship with Alawites.

Oscar
02 May 08,, 19:35
no, Alawites are not a shi'a minority, nor the ruling power in Syria is Alawites. they call themselves Fallah,their sect in Turkey is named as Nusayri. and these Nusayris consider themselves as Alawite but has hardly relationship with Alawites.

Are they considered as being sunni or do they constitute a completely distinct entity from the two main branches of Islam? I was talking of the Assad family.

snc128
02 May 08,, 19:43
Are they considered as being sunni or do they constitute a completely distinct entity from the two main branches of Islam?

Alawites are not a such big group even in Turkey (though mainly exist in Anatolia) but some of them consider themselves as Shi'a falsely,some of them say Alawism has nothing to do with Shi'a sect and they are just muslims and so on.

S2
02 May 08,, 19:46
"Sunni Muslim 74%, other Muslim (includes Alawite, Druze) 16%, Christian (various denominations) 10%, Jewish (tiny communities in Damascus, Al Qamishli, and Aleppo)"

For what it's worth from the CIA Factbook on Syria.

Many seem to believe that they represent both the leading edge of Syrian power as well being a shia sub-sect comprising about 12% of Syria's population.

S2
02 May 08,, 19:59
Citanon,

It's fair to assume that any operation against Iran will ultimately target it's nuclear facilities to achieve destruction or compel enforcement. Doing so means a sustained campaign. Level of tempo is less important to some degree, provided our lassitude doesn't permit the additional hardening/concealment of key targets.

Any air campaign will likely attack immediate and near-term threats while establishing and maintaining both general air supremacy as well as transit corridors for further raids. ADA networks, naval facilities, airbases, IRGC/al-Quds facilities all represent viable first-order targets. So too gulf islands deemed a threat to shipping. These will likely be occupied.

Failure by Iran to respond will lead to it's eventual dismantling in any case. They'll respond and it'll be apparent, I'm sure of that. As to transparency, we won't need much to justify going full-bore.

Shek
03 May 08,, 01:32
which Hezbollah you are refering to? because there are many... and to let you know, they arenot completely shi'a or sunni or even completely consist of muslims!

Lebanon's Party of God. The information below is for the benefit of Zemco.


ICT - International Institute for Counter-Terrorism - Articles - Suicide Terrorism: Development & Characteristics (http://www.ict.org.il/apage/10729.php)

Hizballah suicide terrorism

Suicide terror attacks started in Lebanon in April 1983. A small—and until then unknown—group by the name of Hizballah directed a number of suicide attacks against Western targets. The first attack was directed at the American embassy in Beirut (April 1983), followed by attacks on the U.S. Marines headquarters and the French Multinational Force (October 1983). The last two were executed simultaneously and resulted in 300 casualties and dozens of wounded. The later attack made an indelible impression on world public opinion and terror organizations alike.

After the withdrawal of the Western forces from Lebanon, Hizballah redirected its suicide activities in Lebanon against Israeli Defense Forces (convoys, posts and boarder passages) and against South Lebanese Army posts. Hizballah henceforth significantly decreased its use of this modus operandi to one attack per year or less. Despite this it enjoyed its legacy as the pioneer of suicide bombings in the region.

The aims of Hizballah suicide missions changed and developed over the course of time. Initially, Hizballah was interested in building up it image as a power. Since it was until then a small and little-known group in Lebanon, let alone in the rest of the world, the introduction of this new and devastating modus operandi served the goal of gaining local and global publicity and notoriety.

Hizballah also represented its Iranian patrons with a valuable image for the spread of the Islamic revolution. The readiness of Shi’ite terrorists, utterly fearless and ready to sacrifice themselves for the defense of the “oppressed on earth” was an important propagandist instrument for both Iran and Hizballah.

Hizballah’s suicide attacks were successful in driving the foreign UN Peace Keeping forces out of Lebanon. The attacks also caused the Israeli army to withdraw from the heartland of central Lebanon to a narrow strip in the South.

Suicide attacks also served the organization as a weapon of retaliation and deterrence against Israel. After the Israeli Air-Force killed Hizballah’s secretary general, Abas Musavi in February 1992, the organization carried out a suicide attack against the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires (March 1992) killing 29 people and wounding 250.

In 1994 Hizballah executed another such attack in the same city, against the “AMIA” building of the local Jewish community in retaliation for I.D.F. aerial attack in Lebanon against a Hizballah training camp in Ein Dardara.

Lebanon had seen around 50 suicide attacks between 83-99. The Shiite organizations, Hizballah and Amal were responsible for about half of these. The second half is attributed to five other groups espousing a non-religious nationalist ideology. Impressed by the effectiveness of Hizballah’s attacks in precipitating the withdrawal of the “foreigners” from Lebanon, the nationalist groups followed suit.

Hizballah also influenced a number of terrorist organizations in other countries. Occasionally this influence went beyond merely being a role model.

In Kuwait there two suicide attacks were attributed to El-Dawa, a local Kuwaiti-Shiite fundamentalist group. The first suicide attack was carried out in December 1983 as one in a series of “conventional attacks” of attacks on American, French and Kuwaiti interests. The second attack was directed at the Emir al-Sabah, in May 1985. Hizballah’s direct involvement was proven when the Kuwaiti authorities arrested and tried seventeen people, among them, Mustafa Bader-el-Din a prominent terrorist in Hizballah’s external terror apparatus. Hizballah’s continuous and extensive efforts to release him and his partners came to be known as the “Dawa Seventeen” affair.

Shek
03 May 08,, 01:38
ARG 1 - a marine division will be airlifted to the eastern approaches as a blocking force. A marine amphibious brigade will establish and secure a beach-head to bring their armor, artillery and air defense ashore.

ARG 2 - a marine division will be airlifted to secure the only 2 bridges crossing the Karun River. The MAB will land and secure the port facilities.

Army Group - 5 brigade combat teams will race across the border to link up with the marine division and begin river crossing operations.

1. What air assets can airlift 2 Marine Divisions? The largest deep air assault operation to date has been a brigade. You want to air assault a force 6x larger that has fewer organic rotary wing lift assets?

2. 5 BCTs is not an Army Group. You've just described a reinforced division, which is three echelons below an Army Group.

cape_royds
03 May 08,, 05:43
Actually the point about Hezbollah not being entirely formed of Shia is true. Although it's still a Shi'ite fundamentalist party, its militia includes non-Shia contingents, even some southern Lebanese Christian members. The party has been somewhat successful at broadening its appeal since the 2006 war.

Also, Hezbollah is currently allied with the mostly Maronite Christian FPM, under their former opponent General Aoun!

Officer of Engineers
03 May 08,, 06:16
No such thing as a MIRVd IRBM, you know, it's the physics thing.

The Russians had an IRBM that was a MRV (that's M-R-V not M-I-R-V). Let's add another nail into this idiot's coffin

SS-20 SABRE with THREE MIRV warheads.

Shek
03 May 08,, 13:54
Actually the point about Hezbollah not being entirely formed of Shia is true.

I'm not contending that this is false, just showing that there is a Shia based strain of suicide bombing. I suspect that they don't outsource their suicide bombing to non-Shia members, at least not wholesale.

Zaphael
03 May 08,, 18:44
zraver, you said,


Sea- The carrier planes and attack subs will be trying to sink as much of the Iranian navy as possible in port. The subs will hunt the Iranian subs first. Cluster bombs will be the weapon of chose vs the speed boat sheds and boat crew barracks. Larger vessels will get individual missiles. However the bulk of USN air power will be doing SEAD work.

I think the speed boats would be targeted with Mavericks, while the larger vessels would be targeted by Harpoons.

Bombing a speed boat in CCIP would get a lil tough, IMO.

zraver
03 May 08,, 18:53
Without knowing much about naval operations, it's not obvious we would lose an entire carrier group since these were able, in theory, to handle a Soviet air strike group back in the day and should have greater capabilities today from cooperative engagement and improved sensor, weapons, aircraft, etc. Granted, the Gulf area is highly constricted geographically.

Iran is going to do thier best to sink the carrier in the gulf, and at least until the straits are forced open its on its own except for defensive USAF cover.


Also, why does even 1 carrier have to remain inside the Gulf with air operations running from Iraq, Kuwait, and possibly Saudi Arabia? Iraq would have limited say in the matter, Kuwait and the Saudis are both driven to counter Iranian attainment of nuclear arms.

Not saying you are wrong. Just looking for enlightenment.

If your sending a replacement carrier to the region and then pull 2 put leaving the gulf empty iran will increase readiness. They will anyway with three in the area but not as much if it looks like the US is leaving a big fish in the bag. Plus putting a Carrier and it's marines inside the Gulf increase the combat power the USMC can use against the Thunds.


I think the speed boats would be targeted with Mavericks, while the larger vessels would be targeted by Harpoons.

Bombing a speed boat in CCIP would get a lil tough, IMO.

The FAC's are worthy of maveriks, but the speed boats and crews that pose the big threat to the tankers are cluster bomb sized.

ravi_ku
03 May 08,, 22:06
Just an ignorant question.

How many missiles say an yakhont can a ship of different sizes, say, cruiser/ destroyer /aircraft carrier can take before they are temporarily out/ mission incapable/need to go for extensive repairs/ sunk?

Would a single hit direct on their propellers make them mission incapable?

zraver
04 May 08,, 02:28
Just an ignorant question.

How many missiles say an yakhont can a ship of different sizes, say, cruiser/ destroyer /aircraft carrier can take before they are temporarily out/ mission incapable/need to go for extensive repairs/ sunk?

Would a single hit direct on their propellers make them mission incapable?

propellers are sub surface. 1 missile in the right location can cripple a smaller vessel.

Big K
05 May 08,, 18:56
in a battle yes, but in a war, i dont think so.

you can not win a war against a nation-country in that geography...

but this is just me.

ddog
17 May 08,, 05:11
Or will it turn into another Iraq? Another Vietnam? America isn't at Cold War levels anymore...they can't even handle Iraq...how will they take down Iran?


In a word... Yes!

The issue is that you're requiring not only taking them down but controlling the situation afterward -- something that we've been able to do in Iraq -- yes, we have been able to control the situation but much like Vietnam, the Democratic/Socialistic/Liberal/Communistic mainstream media have purposefully constructed and routed news to make things seem bad when in fact they really aren't (in the scheme of things). One can look at the amount of positive stories coming out of Iraq as opposed to negative ones... of the DSLC Media reports, virtually none are positive -- yet it is impossible for there NOT to be a positive story going on out there. The DSLC Media picks very carefully what they choose to show in order to discredit Conservatives and Conservative Doctrine. Sorry, but that is the way that it is. Keeping that in mind, did the US beat the living crud out of the Iraqi Military? Absolutely.

How would all of this translate to an Iranian conflict? Again, militarily, the US would destroy them in short order. It is only the DSLC media that would have to be 'dealt' with.

LoLy
22 May 08,, 22:49
i hope they can

Bella
03 Jun 08,, 07:32
Can the U.S. take Iran down in "Absolute War?"............."YES"
"Is the U.S. ground forces better then Irans?"............"YES"
"Is the U.S. Air Force better then then Irans?"............"YES"
"Is the U.S. Navy better than Irans?".............."YES"
"Can the U.S. kill every human being in Iran with them liking it or not........YES"
"Can the U.S. destroy Irans military, then win the hearts and minds of "ALL" the Iranian people after doing so?..............."NO"

During Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and if Iran, there is no way the U.S. could ever win!
The only way to win a war in those countries, is to bomb every living human being into submission!, But to do that, the U.S. would have to violate every tready, and laws of war there is!
Right now, people, and countries say that the U.S. is losing the War in Iraq, but the "Absolute Truth", is that the U.S. already has won the convential war in Iraq, but it is the suicide bombers that use retarded women, or themselves, just to kill U.S. troops, or civilians from their own country, that don't believe what they do!
I call those people,"COWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hey!!!..........I say...............You want bloody war?????????.........The U.S. and many other countries will give it if you want us too!!

Dreadnought
03 Jun 08,, 15:09
Iran is going to do thier best to sink the carrier in the gulf, and at least until the straits are forced open its on its own except for defensive USAF cover.



If your sending a replacement carrier to the region and then pull 2 put leaving the gulf empty iran will increase readiness. They will anyway with three in the area but not as much if it looks like the US is leaving a big fish in the bag. Plus putting a Carrier and it's marines inside the Gulf increase the combat power the USMC can use against the Thunds.



The FAC's are worthy of maveriks, but the speed boats and crews that pose the big threat to the tankers are cluster bomb sized.


The right tool for the proper job. Staits of Hormuz baby! Theres only one kind of ship that makes them go silent park a few Apaches with her as air support and a few other additions:cool:

Had an ex Navy man aboard the other day (coreman) from another era and told me he was an eye withness to a speed boat attack in which the speedboat (Donzi sized) was destroyed by a banjo missle? Sound familiar to anyone?:confused:

Stitch
03 Jun 08,, 19:28
Just an ignorant question.

How many missiles say an yakhont can a ship of different sizes, say, cruiser/ destroyer /aircraft carrier can take before they are temporarily out/ mission incapable/need to go for extensive repairs/ sunk?

Would a single hit direct on their propellers make them mission incapable?

It would take quite a bit of firepower to actually sink an aircraft carrier; in theory, a couple of Penguins or Silkworms could do it, but there is an awful lot of firepower directed at defending an aircraft carrier. It all depends on where it gets hit; normally, a single hit anywhere on the ship (even the bridge) wouldn't incapacitate it (that's what the CIC is for), especially in wartime. In peacetime, I'm sure we would immediately pull an asset that's been damaged and send it back to friendly territory, but in wartime it might be necessary to stay and fight, even with limited combat effectiveness.

In any case, there are multiple layers of defence for an a/c, all the way from strategic to tactical, not to mention all of the other ships in a CSG; the Aegis-equipped guided missle cruisers are probably the most advanced surface warfare ships in the world. Basically, it would be fairly difficult for the Iranians to get a Silkworm to hit an a/c, let alone sink it.

Johnny W
04 Jun 08,, 03:16
in a battle yes, but in a war, i dont think so.

you can not win a war against a nation-country in that geography...

but this is just me.

Well, we aren't going to war with Iran any time soon, so its a moot point.

But The Romans use to do it with relative ease. :)

With the right tactics, we could probably subdue Iran, but I hope that we never adopt those tactics.

Johnny W
04 Jun 08,, 03:21
It would take quite a bit of firepower to actually sink an aircraft carrier; in theory, a couple of Penguins or Silkworms could do it, but there is an awful lot of firepower directed at defending an aircraft carrier. It all depends on where it gets hit; normally, a single hit anywhere on the ship (even the bridge) wouldn't incapacitate it (that's what the CIC is for), especially in wartime. In peacetime, I'm sure we would immediately pull an asset that's been damaged and send it back to friendly territory, but in wartime it might be necessary to stay and fight, even with limited combat effectiveness.

In any case, there are multiple layers of defence for an a/c, all the way from strategic to tactical, not to mention all of the other ships in a CSG; the Aegis-equipped guided missle cruisers are probably the most advanced surface warfare ships in the world. Basically, it would be fairly difficult for the Iranians to get a Silkworm to hit an a/c, let alone sink it.

You are correct. A couple of silkworms or penguins would have to get lucky to actually sink a Nimitz class. Those ships have tremendous compartmentalization and damage control capabilities. But those missiles could definitely put a serious dent in its operational capabilities.

zraver
04 Jun 08,, 19:45
During Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and if Iran, there is no way the U.S. could ever win!
The only way to win a war in those countries, is to bomb every living human being into submission!, But to do that, the U.S. would have to violate every tready, and laws of war there is!

Which is the fundamental fallacy in the laws of war. They seek a one sized fits all solution based on European and American war time experiences going back several hundred years. They have three major flaws. One thing the laws of war have never been able to address is justice for the small countries. Even if they win a war they didn't start vs a great power, they will still be punished for it. Since you are going to be punished anyway, might as well make sure you win- take the gloves off.

Another thing is that nations like the US or another p5 country are sanction proof. They are effectively above the law. I am not exactly sure if a party to the dispute cannot cast its P5 vote in the UNSC. I've seen it argued both ways. If they can, then any P5 member could nuke a non-P5 members capitol and walk away from with no formal international sanctions, and becuase thier economies are so big, even informal sanctions by individual countries will not work to any great extent. Even if they cannot vote on their own behalf in a worst case nuclear scenario, anything less than an atomic fireball will be ignored, is ignored, and has been ignored.

the final failure, is the third world. Some lives are simply worth more than others based on nothing more than location on the globe. A small war in the Balkans gets headline news, and international tribunals. A small but horrible fight in Africa gets largely ignored.

Stitch,


It would take quite a bit of firepower to actually sink an aircraft carrier; in theory, a couple of Penguins or Silkworms could do it, but there is an awful lot of firepower directed at defending an aircraft carrier. It all depends on where it gets hit; normally, a single hit anywhere on the ship (even the bridge) wouldn't incapacitate it (that's what the CIC is for), especially in wartime. In peacetime, I'm sure we would immediately pull an asset that's been damaged and send it back to friendly territory, but in wartime it might be necessary to stay and fight, even with limited combat effectiveness.

What about a carrier that just took two rocket mines under the keel? or just got blasted with two torpedo mines in the side. Iran has a very very large mine capability. If iran starts the fight, and is able to get the strait mined, then a damaged carrier is there sink or swim until the war is over or very nearly so. Mines like the Te-1/EM-52 family are very hard to detect and sweep.

Dreadnought
04 Jun 08,, 20:48
What about a carrier that just took two rocket mines under the keel? or just got blasted with two torpedo mines in the side. Iran has a very very large mine capability. If iran starts the fight, and is able to get the strait mined, then a damaged carrier is there sink or swim until the war is over or very nearly so. Mines like the Te-1/EM-52 family are very hard to detect and sweep.

Zraver, Disagree. The USN has cutting edge mine detection technology in hand these days and use it on a constant basis. They are small highly mobile sytems that can be retrofitted to basically any ship they wish to call home. General Dynamics among other have come along way with this technology and have micro sized and mobilized its capability. Secondly the USN will not leave a few billion dollar asset in foreign waters "down" while billions of dollars in aircraft are aboard as well as some of the latest sea going satellite technology.

If a CV or "now days since Kitty is on her way homeward" A CVN is downed in the straight you can bet your ass it will be an all out fight air and seapower wise until they get her home. Iran may down the carrier with a mine but in retrospect the damage that will be done to their country and infastructure/population will be at the least "tragic".;)

My bets are they never get close to the CV even mine wise.

Just my 2 cents.:)

Traxus
05 Jun 08,, 02:09
It would take quite a bit of firepower to actually sink an aircraft carrier; in theory, a couple of Penguins or Silkworms could do it, but there is an awful lot of firepower directed at defending an aircraft carrier. It all depends on where it gets hit; normally, a single hit anywhere on the ship (even the bridge) wouldn't incapacitate it (that's what the CIC is for), especially in wartime. In peacetime, I'm sure we would immediately pull an asset that's been damaged and send it back to friendly territory, but in wartime it might be necessary to stay and fight, even with limited combat effectiveness.

In any case, there are multiple layers of defence for an a/c, all the way from strategic to tactical, not to mention all of the other ships in a CSG; the Aegis-equipped guided missle cruisers are probably the most advanced surface warfare ships in the world. Basically, it would be fairly difficult for the Iranians to get a Silkworm to hit an a/c, let alone sink it.

Would this (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch.html) be a threat to US carriers?

Its called the Sizzler by the West, its Russian made. Here are some specifications:
Chinese Defence Today - 3M-54E (SS-N-27) Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp)

Here is the original article:

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

"This is a carrier-destroying weapon," said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. "That's its purpose."
Bloomberg.com: Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=home&sid=a5LkaU0wj714)

It also mentions that Russia offered some of these to Iran along with their Kilo class subs, although the US doesn't think they took them.

Thoughts? This could all just be hype, I dont know enough about this to tell.

zraver
05 Jun 08,, 05:41
Iran may down the carrier with a mine but in retrospect the damage that will be done to their country and infastructure/population will be at the least "tragic".;)

My bets are they never get close to the CV even mine wise.

Just my 2 cents.:)

Going back to my argument about the fallacy of laws governing wars. Iran has watched the US and how it fights it wars. They know that if war breaks out every bridge, power plant, telephone exchange, server farm, transformer station, rail switching yard, water treatment plant, sewage treatment plant, police headquarters etc is going to eat multiple PGW's. So what exactly do they have to lose? Since the US does not feel the need to obey the laws of war, why should Iran hold back from trying to destroy a valid target. A Nimitz class carrier getting sunk/crippled won't lead to one more building being destroyed in Iran.

And win or lose, the US will use its P5 veto to kepe sanctions in place for at least 20 years (Vietnam) and possibly 50 or more years (Cuba) no matter what they do so again why hold back? becuase if war comes, Iran knows it has already bought the farm long term so they have nothing left to lose.

Dreadnought
05 Jun 08,, 20:49
So what exactly do they have to lose? Since the US does not feel the need to obey the laws of war, why should Iran hold back from trying to destroy a valid target. A Nimitz class carrier getting sunk/crippled won't lead to one more building being destroyed in Iran.

Excuse me. Im' not getting what you are trying to say in the bold highlite above. Would you mind clarifying that for me?

Being a military professional I think you know much better then this. When the U.S. goes to conflict it has very clear rules of engagement and penalties if those rules are broken without regard.

zraver
05 Jun 08,, 23:58
So what exactly do they have to lose? Since the US does not feel the need to obey the laws of war, why should Iran hold back from trying to destroy a valid target. A Nimitz class carrier getting sunk/crippled won't lead to one more building being destroyed in Iran.

Excuse me. Im' not getting what you are trying to say in the bold highlite above. Would you mind clarifying that for me?

Being a military professional I think you know much better then this. When the U.S. goes to conflict it has very clear rules of engagement and penalties if those rules are broken without regard.

Look at the USAF target list for Iraq 91, Serbia, and Iraq 03. The US goes after targets with only a marginal military but huge civilian value. Cutting the bridges over the Danube (the war was in Kosovo), Baghdad's water supply etc. The imposing of ruinous sanctions on Cuba and Iraq, and then keeping them going when it was obvious the only people sufferign were the commoners.

Now if you can explain the military justification in cutting millions of peoples water supply in the middle of the Middle east, or cutting the riverine life line to most of Eastern Europe I will be happy to listen.

But lets see how those four acts stack up against various treaties.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.



4th Geneva Convention

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventionscollective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

The Hauge Conventions of 1907

Art. 22.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 50.

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

The US ignores rules like these with impunity.

gunnut
06 Jun 08,, 00:23
Begging your pardon sir, I don't see anywhere that bombing of telephone exchanges, bridges, water treatment plants, power plants, TV and radio towers, ...etc. are outlawed.

If you mean "ill treatment" as in not keeping the tap water flowing and the TV running in times of war, then wouldn't killing their soldiers on the battlefield also "ill treatment" to the population? A soldier is a son, probably a brother, a husband, and a father. A single death could cause immeasurable psychological trauma to non-combatants. Think about the children.

zraver
06 Jun 08,, 02:05
Begging your pardon sir, I don't see anywhere that bombing of telephone exchanges, bridges, water treatment plants, power plants, TV and radio towers, ...etc. are outlawed.

If you mean "ill treatment" as in not keeping the tap water flowing and the TV running in times of war, then wouldn't killing their soldiers on the battlefield also "ill treatment" to the population? A soldier is a son, probably a brother, a husband, and a father. A single death could cause immeasurable psychological trauma to non-combatants. Think about the children.

Cutting the supply of water to millions in Iraq, or civilian commerce in Serbia and by extension Hungary and other countries relying on the Danube for no military gain. Thats the rub- we inflict suffering on civilian populations for no military gain and that is illegal. other nations watch us do this again and again and so why should they respect the LOAC?

It has been estimated that US enforced sanction on Iraq killed or caused the early death of over 1 million Iraqi citizens. We didn't even allow in replacement parts for the water treatment plants. For years Iraq could not even import food and medicine.

Dreadnought
06 Jun 08,, 16:47
Cutting the supply of water to millions in Iraq, or civilian commerce in Serbia and by extension Hungary and other countries relying on the Danube for no military gain. Thats the rub- we inflict suffering on civilian populations for no military gain and that is illegal. other nations watch us do this again and again and so why should they respect the LOAC?

It has been estimated that US enforced sanction on Iraq killed or caused the early death of over 1 million Iraqi citizens. We didn't even allow in replacement parts for the water treatment plants. For years Iraq could not even import food and medicine.

IMO I would revert this to Shek for an official definition. It is unfortunate that certain targets do effect the general populis however these very same targets are also supplying said countries military just the same.

Iraq was part of the "oil for food" sanctions. Blaming the U.S. for that is unjustified when you have the leader of your country defy the U.N.. The blame falls on that countries government for the sanctions,those in power are the ones responsible. They had their day infront of the U.N. and chose to waste it playing games with the nuclear inspections and black marketing oil past the sanctions. If the people's cause was that bad well revolt is always another option.

Blaming the U.S. for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis is prepostorus when their government could have followed the UN mandates and all could have been fine. And just think how many of the fellow countrymen (although different following) killed civilians for almost any reason under the sun as well as taking shots at our troops time and time again.

The regime/persons that are ultimately responsible for (I dont even think we know the real total numberl) of deaths are now either windchimes or waiting their turn to become one.

zraver
07 Jun 08,, 08:14
IMO I would revert this to Shek for an official definition. It is unfortunate that certain targets do effect the general populis however these very same targets are also supplying said countries military just the same.

Cutting the water supply to millions to force the elites to keep drinking the bottled water they already had does not meet the level of justification that should be required.


Iraq was part of the "oil for food" sanctions. Blaming the U.S. for that is unjustified when you have the leader of your country defy the U.N.. The blame falls on that countries government for the sanctions,those in power are the ones responsible. They had their day infront of the U.N. and chose to waste it playing games with the nuclear inspections and black marketing oil past the sanctions. If the people's cause was that bad well revolt is always another option.

They did revolt and we hung them out to dry.


Blaming the U.S. for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis is prepostorus when their government could have followed the UN mandates and all could have been fine. And just think how many of the fellow countrymen (although different following) killed civilians for almost any reason under the sun as well as taking shots at our troops time and time again.

The regime/persons that are ultimately responsible for (I dont even think we know the real total numberl) of deaths are now either windchimes or waiting their turn to become one.

Being ultimately responsible, does not make them solely responsable.

zraver
07 Jun 08,, 23:59
here are some excerpts of what we did to Iraq, not Saddam post war. if this is how we treat those we beat in war, why should they hold back on us if they can at least or possibly strike a blow against us?

"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the [Iraqi] sanctions
Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'

World Health Organisation reported on health, morbidity and mortality data for 1989-1994 and commented: Comparing levels of the infant mortality rate (IMR) and the mortality of children under 5 years old during the pre war period (1988-1989) with that during the period of the sanctions (since 1990), it is clear that the IMR has doubled and the mortality rate for children under 5 years old has increased six times.

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, headed by the distinguished Australian jurist Philip Alston, issued a report expressing concern that the Security Council, in establishing and maintaining sanctions, did not adequately take into account its responsibilities under economic, social and cultural rights law. The report stated that sanctions often cause significant disruption in the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, jeopardize the quality of food and the availability of clean drinking water, severely interfere with the functioning of basic health and education systems, and undermine the right to work.

Security Council’s Iraq Sanctions Committee, Ambassador António Monteiro of Portugal, convened a series of meetings with Council colleagues during 1998. He brought together the chairmen of the Council’s sanctions committees, all elected members, to discuss the Council’s humanitarian responsibilities and the steps that it should take to improve sanctions more generally. On October 30, the group circulated a paper to the whole Council, setting forth its concerns with a series of reform proposals. The reformers noted that sanctions often produce undesired side effects for the civilian population, including children. The decisions of the Security Council to impose sanctions imply the Council's obligation to ensure that proper implementation of sanctions does not result in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and its responsibility to do all within its power for the respect of the basic economic, social and cultural rights, and other human rights of the affected population.

In its report of March 1999, the humanitarian panel set forth the alarming decline in living standards in Iraq, including health, food, infrastructure and education In marked contrast to the prevailing situation prior to the events of 1990-91, the infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among the highest in the world, low infant birth weight affects at least 23% of all births, chronic malnutrition affects every fourth child under five years of age, only 41% of the population has regular access to clean water, 83% of all schools need substantial repairs.

On January 27, 2000, after ten months of hearings, the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development issued a report that proved a sharp rebuke to the government’s sanctions policies. (42) The Executive Summary stated that: There is a clear consensus that the humanitarian and developmental situation in Iraq has deteriorated seriously since the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions whilst, at the same time, sanctions have clearly failed to hurt those responsible for past violations of international law as Saddam Hussein and his ruling elite continue to enjoy a privileged existence.

Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future - Security Council - Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#3)

Dreadnought
09 Jun 08,, 14:24
Hind sight is always 20/20.;)


Being ultimately responsible, does not make them solely responsable

Knowing that military action was already afoot and directed at you and your governing body does ultimately make you responsible for the protection of your people and the choices you make in protecting them. That is not some hat you can put on and take off at your wish. Saddam was ultimatley responsible for the way the Americans chose to enter Iraq. He could have followed the mandates and chose not too aergo endangering the civilian populations of Iraq the very same way he endangered the people of Kuwait when his army invaded them and set the oil fields ablaze.And we both know he chose to finally leave Kuwait after he had his ass handed to him but this still did not deter him. Again another chance and another choice. He chose poorly and his people paid for that choice.

zraver
09 Jun 08,, 18:33
Hind sight is always 20/20.;)


Being ultimately responsible, does not make them solely responsable

Knowing that military action was already afoot and directed at you and your governing body does ultimately make you responsible for the protection of your people and the choices you make in protecting them. That is not some hat you can put on and take off at your wish. Saddam was ultimatley responsible for the way the Americans chose to enter Iraq. He could have followed the mandates and chose not too aergo endangering the civilian populations of Iraq the very same way he endangered the people of Kuwait when his army invaded them and set the oil fields ablaze.And we both know he chose to finally leave Kuwait after he had his ass handed to him but this still did not deter him. Again another chance and another choice. He chose poorly and his people paid for that choice.

Ther eis an old saying two wrongs does not make a right. We knew the sanctions as they were set up were not affecting Saddam. We chose not to go after more target sanctions that shifted the pain to him and his elites and instead kept the pressure on the common Iraqi. We knew the sanctions we pushed for were not working, and we kept them in place- thats our fault. Thats the reason the US should not expect any foe to follow the rules. We don't (collective punishment being one example) why should they. We also use mercaneries, detain without trial, torture etc ad nasuem. Instead of leading the way in the observation of the rules of war, we flout them.

Dreadnought
09 Jun 08,, 18:59
IMO I think many would disagreee with that view, especially those serving. But hey everybody is entitled to their views.;)

zraver
09 Jun 08,, 21:10
IMO I think many would disagreee with that view, especially those serving. But hey everybody is entitled to their views.;)

How does Gitmo or rendition follow the rules of war? I am not talking about the actual terrorists captured, but militia and warlord fighters and members of the Taliban.

How do sanctions aimed at a civilian population follow the rules? How does cuttign off a civilian populations water follow the rules. How does invading a nation without Un sanction follow the rules? And thats just the GWOT, the farther back we go the more examples I can show where the US does not obey the LOAC.

Dreadnought
09 Jun 08,, 21:40
We can close GITMO I have no problem with that but the countries that breed these people must be held responsible. If they cannot be none the less they must be removed from population so they cannot hurt civilians (which happens to be one of their more aimed targets) Hell lets send them to the moon. Any place where they cannot kill because of others beliefs in making a safer nation does no coincide with what some radical Imam has tought from the safety of a mosque or church.

GITMO does not have to abide by Genieva. They do not present themselves on the battlefield (Instead hide behind civilians women and children alike. They target their own population. They do not wear a uniform therefore there is no clarity of whom they serve. Serving a terrorist organization such as the Taliban or AQ does not grant them any kind of immunity.

Doing nothing about it is a far stretch from responsibility.

The sanctions are aimed at motivating a government to become a more responsible world neighbor. We all want the same thing. Peace. And sometimes it must come through methods such as this. It also motivates the population into looking much closer at their elected officials before they get into these positions which as you pointed out the people are the bottom line.

zraver
10 Jun 08,, 00:22
We can close GITMO I have no problem with that but the countries that breed these people must be held responsible.

No disagreement, but what of the many people released from Gitmo after being held for years with out a trial, no counsel, no access to consular officals, denied POW status etc only to be free with no charges filed.

Check out the case of Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri, from Kuwait. No proof is presented, he was caught with no weapon, no witnesses were presented against him and he was labeled a combatant. http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/abdalazizalshammeri.pdf

all the known detainees http://wid.ap.org/documents/detainees/abdalazizalshammeri.pdf


If they cannot be none the less they must be removed from population so they cannot hurt civilians (which happens to be one of their more aimed targets) Hell lets send them to the moon. Any place where they cannot kill because of others beliefs in making a safer nation does no coincide with what some radical Imam has tought from the safety of a mosque or church.

Which is more dangerous- a zealot or a zealot supported by the actions of his enemy?


GITMO does not have to abide by Genieva.

Gitmo does have to abide by the LOAC and the US Constatution and relevant treaties so sayeth the Supreme Court. Given the number or people released with no charges filed you can hardly make the case they are all terrorist.


Doing nothing about it is a far stretch from responsibility.

Doing nothing is doing something. legally the term is willful disregard

willful Law Definition

adj

1. In civil law, intentional, voluntary, knowing; distinguished from accidental, but not necessarily malicious.
2. In criminal law, an act done stubbornly or with an evil intent.


The sanctions are aimed at motivating a government to become a more responsible world neighbor. We all want the same thing. Peace. And sometimes it must come through methods such as this. It also motivates the population into looking much closer at their elected officials before they get into these positions which as you pointed out the people are the bottom line.

That is collective punishment and is illegal.

gunnut
10 Jun 08,, 00:53
How does Gitmo or rendition follow the rules of war? I am not talking about the actual terrorists captured, but militia and warlord fighters and members of the Taliban.

Didn't we used to give a fair trial of all un-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of war, followed by a swift execution?



How do sanctions aimed at a civilian population follow the rules? How does cuttign off a civilian populations water follow the rules. How does invading a nation without Un sanction follow the rules? And thats just the GWOT, the farther back we go the more examples I can show where the US does not obey the LOAC.

So you would agree that we should have opened up trade with Iraq? How about Cuba?

You know my position on sanctions. They don't work. We should open up trades with them.

Here's a big one. Do you also support free trade with China, after the "atrocities" they committed in Tibet?

Blademaster
10 Jun 08,, 06:12
Didn't we used to give a fair trial of all un-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of war, followed by a swift execution?


That is no longer allowed. It is actually grounds for murder.



So you would agree that we should have opened up trade with Iraq? How about Cuba?

You know my position on sanctions. They don't work. We should open up trades with them.

Here's a big one. Do you also support free trade with China, after the "atrocities" they committed in Tibet?

I do support trade with any country that is not actively working to harm US otherwise, money talks.

Cuba is not actively working to harm US. Iraq is a mixed case. You had Saddam that was constantly scheming to hurt US but hampered by his nation's lack of resources and intelligence. N. Korea is one case where I do not support trade. As for China, although I dislike what they do in Tibet, it is none of our affairs, but that doesn't mean China should tell us what to do regarding Tibetans in our country.

Dreadnought
10 Jun 08,, 15:16
I think the point I'm driving at is as follows:

1) I have zero problem with GITMO. Many want it closed but where to house these individuals. (Their own countries dont want them either) I dont want them on U.S. soil nor credence to the U.S. Constitiution. They dont deserve these Rights and are not U.S. citizens so therefore why tie up our judicial system when they are not POW's. That is why Bush had them labeled as combatants.

2) They were forewarned what would happen ahead of time. (If you want to fight a political war then you better pay attention to politics not religious eddicts.) Wether they are too dam stupid or ballsy to heed the warning is their own problem not ours. They were caught. The U.S. would not waste its time nor money putting somebody there for petty crimes that is fact otherwise they would be held in Iraq. Totally undisputable fact. So this means one of several things either they were involved or they chose to be around or support those who are actively involved. Not our problem. With all the gentlemen/ladies here that are military active or have been active one thing is a given known beyond doubt. Self responsibility! And responsibility for oneself and oneselfs own actions. If you want to play the game then you choose to pay when you loose. Their game is over. And I believe there is enough experience here on WAB to state the conditions they live in. I dare you to find that in other prisons.

If you would like to dispute the U.S. hanging on to these individuals then just compare them with the way other countries treat terrorists and combatants. I would bet on a very stark contrast and chances are they would have been dead by now.;)

Like mentioned before if you want GITMO closed then go put them in the complainees countries and see how well they do. But shoot them immediately if they step foot on U.S. soil or any other Allied nations soil. These people either kill or are a link in the chain to those that do. Justice is Justice.

zraver
10 Jun 08,, 15:17
Didn't we used to give a fair trial of all un-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of war, followed by a swift execution?

Militia always had a bit a leeway there. A bit of colored cloth, or in the Taliban's case beards something to identify them was all that was required. Don't get em wrong the Taliban were evil bastards, but they were not strictly speaking terrorists.


So you would agree that we should have opened up trade with Iraq? How about Cuba?

I never said we should have opened up trade. But sanctions aimed at hurting the civilian population don't work. We should have allowed the sale or more oil, had the UN seize the proceeds and spend it on the Iraqi people. And not just last minute subsistence items, but rebuilt the civilian infastrcuture.

As for Cuba, I think we got our pound of flesh years ago. Modern Cuba is almost as nice an international player as you could ask for. They export doctors around the region. Most of thier support for leftists has ended and they are generally pro-American.


You know my position on sanctions. They don't work. We should open up trades with them.

Here's a big one. Do you also support free trade with China, after the "atrocities" they committed in Tibet?

I think honest to goodness trade should be a reward, not a bribe. Trade with China has the look and feel of blood money. 3 decades of trade with China has given it modern technology and a massive economy but freedom and democracy don't seem to be making much progress.

lwarmonger
11 Jun 08,, 03:32
I think honest to goodness trade should be a reward, not a bribe. Trade with China has the look and feel of blood money. 3 decades of trade with China has given it modern technology and a massive economy but freedom and democracy don't seem to be making much progress.

Well, their leadership seems far more concerned with their ability (or lack thereof) to keep the lid on then they did before the economic reforms... and it isn't like this is a one way street. Bringing China into the global economy has had very tangible benefits for everyone concerned.

Bluesman
11 Jun 08,, 03:56
Don't get em wrong the Taliban were evil bastards, but they were not strictly speaking terrorists.

Total bosh; they dam' well ARE terrorists, and they always have been. You're talking out your ass.

Bluesman
11 Jun 08,, 04:08
How does invading a nation without Un sanction follow the rules?

Are you signing up for the re-write of the Constitution that invests the power to declare war with the UNSC?


And thats just the GWOT, the farther back we go the more examples I can show where the US does not obey the LOAC.

Of course the US follows LOAC, and there's not a single country more scrupulous about it, either.

You are more full of crap than almost any non-foreign poster I've seen in awhile.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 08,, 05:22
Z,

In order for the rules of LOAC to actually apply, a delcaration of war is necessary. Most of you complaints are invalid simply because no status of war exists.

zraver
11 Jun 08,, 15:38
Z,

In order for the rules of LOAC to actually apply, a delcaration of war is necessary. Most of you complaints are invalid simply because no status of war exists.

OoE, I dissagree with you. When you were in uniform, didn't you carry an identifying card that lsited your status under the Geneva Convnetions? Had the Soviets crossed the border with or without a formal declaration of war we would have expected them to abide by it. The US expected the same thing from the North Vietnamese in Vietnam and the Chinese in Korea. A nations military force, and how military operations are conducted should be under the LOAC regardless of the political gesture of a formal declaration of war.

But that is drifting off topic, I know full well 99% of the uniformed military members in the west will follow the LOAC because they are for the most part written into the fiber of thier being. However there is 1%, some of them scoundrels, but most being those employing strategic platforms who do not. Strategic or total warfare by its very nature precludes the LOAC. When your preparing for Armageddon I except that such a mindset is required. There are no rules when the nukes fly. But when you take that same mindset and employ it against small nations and cripple them and by extension thier people for no real military purpose then I have a problem with that in so much as if thats how we are going to play the game. Then by all that is holy we should not expect these same smaller nations to play by the rules either.

Thus if Iran thinks that blocking the straits of Hormuz is a valid weapon on thier part- go for it. Who are we (USA) to tell anyone about how to fight a moral war.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 08,, 15:54
I'm not sure how you are deriving moral or immoral actions. Iran blocking the Straits is legally an Act of War. Sanctions are not Acts of War.

I'm sorta understanding where you're coming from. The results of sanctions could be just as devastating as a bomb but you're talking about the LOAC which have very particular rules about it and those rules do not include economic actions.

zraver
11 Jun 08,, 17:16
I'm not sure how you are deriving moral or immoral actions. Iran blocking the Straits is legally an Act of War. Sanctions are not Acts of War.

I'm sorta understanding where you're coming from. The results of sanctions could be just as devastating as a bomb but you're talking about the LOAC which have very particular rules about it and those rules do not include economic actions.

Since there was never a formal peace with Iraq I would think they are actions undertaken during a war. And collective punishment is illegal. What we did to the Iraqi people was wrong and as immoral as what the UK did to Germany 1914-1919

Dreadnought
11 Jun 08,, 17:45
Thus if Iran thinks that blocking the straits of Hormuz is a valid weapon on thier part- go for it. Who are we (USA) to tell anyone about how to fight a moral war.

The Straits dont belong to Iran thus if they block it they are opening up themselves to whatever happens and it wont wait long enough for the U.N. to produce sanctions. We are allied with the other side of the Straits. So if Iran decides to attempt it then they shall have the confrontation they seem so eager to have as I an would have already commited an act of war by blockade. And being as so they are trying to make nice with their neighbors I dont think this is something they would contenplate.

*The Strait of Hormuz has been an important waterway since the earliest development of maritime trade. That means if you scan the pages of histories, or the countless clay tablets that speak of great historic empires in the region, you will find the waterway facilitated trade for all of them. In those days the waterway serviced a diversified trade in whatever supported the communities along its shores and adjacent hinterlands. Much of that was agricultural, especially grains, fruits, wines, and wool, but copper and wood were important goods, while gold, silver and precious stones served both as medium of exchange and trade goods.

Nothing in the historic trade came close to the importance of the modern flow of oil through that narrow passage. On a daily basis the Strait now witnesses the passage of ships carrying 16-18 million barrels of oil and at least 2 million barrels of petroleum products. That amounts to 40% of all the oil that moves in international trade. That means the view in either direction is normally full of shipping. Therefore, as anyone who looks at it quickly notes, any significant disruption of that flow would have immediate impact on the global economy, sharply affecting both energy supplies and prices.

In that context, it becomes terribly important who owns or controls the Hormuz choke point. Iran borders the north side of the Strait. The United Arab Emirates and Oman border the south side. The Strait is so narrow however that the adjacent coastal states are subject to special constraints of the Law of the Sea. In principle, under the United Nations Convention of 1982, all coastal states are entitled to claim coastal waters out to a 12 nautical mile limit, but the Strait is only 21 nautical miles wide at its choke point. The maximum either side could assert a right to is 10.5 nautical miles.

To observe the rights of coastal states while also serving the needs of maritime navigation, special rules have been established for the Strait: A six mile navigation channel has been defined consisting of a 2 mile wide inbound lane, a 2 mile wide separation lane, and a 2 mile wide outbound lane. Nominally, the inbound lane impinges on Iranian territorial waters, while the outbound lane impinges on UAE and Omani waters. The Law of the Sea permits innocent passage in both directions to all maritime users.;)

IMO 10.5 Nautical miles is plenty enough room for shipping. If Iran again decides to harass US warships in waters other then their own then they deserve to get blown out of the water without warning. Cat and mouse only last so long until the mouse gets eaten or the cat gets tired of playing.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 08,, 18:39
Since there was never a formal peace with Iraq I would think they are actions undertaken during a war.Iraq agreed to those terms.


And collective punishment is illegal. What we did to the Iraqi people was wrong and as immoral as what the UK did to Germany 1914-1919I don't know if it is collective punishment. It is our equipment. We have the right not to sell it. It is their oil. We have the right not to buy it.

zraver
11 Jun 08,, 20:46
Thus if Iran thinks that blocking the straits of Hormuz is a valid weapon on thier part- go for it. Who are we (USA) to tell anyone about how to fight a moral war.

The Straits dont belong to Iran thus if they block it they are opening up themselves to whatever happens and it wont wait long enough for the U.N. to produce sanctions.

Your missing the point. If war comes then every thing the US can do via its military and power in the UN is going to happen anyway.



We are allied with the other side of the Straits. So if Iran decides to attempt it then they shall have the confrontation they seem so eager to have as I an would have already commited an act of war by blockade. And being as so they are trying to make nice with their neighbors I dont think this is something they would contenplate.

The GCC keeps bending over and telling Iran its ready to play b*tch, but iran is not playing nice with the GCC. every member in the gulf has been told if the US operates from them or in thier area they will be attacked. Given the sheer vulnerability of the GCC to the host of Iranian options its a pretty big threat to them.




IMO 10.5 Nautical miles is plenty enough room for shipping. If Iran again decides to harass US warships in waters other then their own then they deserve to get blown out of the water without warning. Cat and mouse only last so long until the mouse gets eaten or the cat gets tired of playing.

If Iran can get a thick enough mine density in the area the oil stops flowing. There is 2 weeks worth of oil already enroute, plus what ever each nation has as a strategic reserve. After that things get tight, but more importantly is going to be the price spikes by speculators and shipping insurance companies.
The US is rumbling towards recession with $135 a barrel oil. How will we fair at $400 or $600 a barrel?

This threat of an attack on the worlds global energy market is why the Straits of Hormuz will be a naval target. Iran has been building for this fight for 20 years now. This is the one area of the world where the USN is not the automatic winner by default. Although Iran cannot win a war vs the US, the might make the price of victory ruinously steep for us.

OoE,


I don't know if it is collective punishment. It is our equipment. We have the right not to sell it. It is their oil. We have the right not to buy it.

If it was the US and Canada saying that that would be one thing. But it was members of the P5 and a large portion of the international community being blocked by the US veto. Plus the sanctions were targeted to put the heaviest burden on those least able to bear it. Furthermore, it should not matter if Saddam agreed or not. He had already abdicated the best interests of his people. We had the obligation as the victors not to impose collective punishment on the Iraqi people for a crime they never committed.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jun 08,, 21:16
If it was the US and Canada saying that that would be one thing. But it was members of the P5 and a large portion of the international community being blocked by the US veto. Plus the sanctions were targeted to put the heaviest burden on those least able to bear it. Furthermore, it should not matter if Saddam agreed or not. He had already abdicated the best interests of his people. We had the obligation as the victors not to impose collective punishment on the Iraqi people for a crime they never committed.We have an obligation to see that the terms of surrender are complied with. Further more, you are the one who is arguing the legality of these actions. Well, legally, Saddam was Iraq. Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms of surrender leaves the victor open to punish Iraq. Again, those were the terms of surrender.

I don't see how US actions were illegal or immoral. They were to punish Saddam at the least possible cost to our side, meaning that we did not want to restart the war ... at least not then.

The actions were designed to cripple Saddam's ruling power and that we did, again, very well within the rights of the victor to punish any violation of the terms of surrender. Just because Saddam refused to look after his own people does not shift that responsibility to us. We were not occupiers.

Dreadnought
12 Jun 08,, 14:43
"The GCC keeps bending over and telling Iran its ready to play b*tch, but iran is not playing nice with the GCC. every member in the gulf has been told if the US operates from them or in thier area they will be attacked. Given the sheer vulnerability of the GCC to the host of Iranian options its a pretty big threat to them."

*That means basically nothing but more hot air from an Iranian bigmouth. Whats going to happen if an attack comes from a sea platform such as a Guided missle cruiser,Aegis Destroyer, Aircraft Carrier or Sub?

*Plenty of range and well capable of defending themselves.

*Who do they blame now or threaten and we can sit and launch,launch launch and all they can do is recieve, recieve, recieve and we can do that for a prolonged period without even putting one boot on the ground.

*How long do you think they can possibly withstand that when everything there becomes a target and we **** their oil processing up?

*The will need oil just like everybody else.

"If Iran can get a thick enough mine density in the area the oil stops flowing. There is 2 weeks worth of oil already enroute, plus what ever each nation has as a strategic reserve. After that things get tight, but more importantly is going to be the price spikes by speculators and shipping insurance companies."
The US is rumbling towards recession with $135 a barrel oil. How will we fair at $400 or $600 a barrel?

*It would be dealt with the very same way it was dealt with when Iraq mined the area as well. We are not by any means new to mine warfare where as Iran is a new kid on the playground when it comes to such tactics.

*You also forget Iran cannot process the oil that flows from her. It has to be refined as well before becoming the gas that goes into their tanks. Her refined oil supply is as vulnerable as everybody elses.
That is why the prices have also sky rocketed in Iran itself.

*So we start drilling here more then ever we actually have alot of oil here in the U.S. not that we need to. We could also get it from Iraq itself and call it debt relief of Kuwait or even others.

*We dont by from Iraq or Iran. Mainly we buy from the Saudies. Very few ME countries do we buy from.

*Since alot of nations oil travels that Strait do you think we are the only ones concerned with its safe passage?

*Oil wont hit anywhere even close to that. Think about it if we stopped buying gasoline for one week maybe even two weeks as a nation we would drive the oil prices so far down OPEC itself would be crying. Can we do it? All depends on just how bad we want it.

*And by the time oil were to ever hit those prices we would have added several drilling teams to extract our oil. Then what happens to all the oil barrons? They loose. Now you know why we import oil and dont drill our own.

zraver
12 Jun 08,, 17:32
We have an obligation to see that the terms of surrender are complied with. Further more, you are the one who is arguing the legality of these actions. Well, legally, Saddam was Iraq. Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms of surrender leaves the victor open to punish Iraq. Again, those were the terms of surrender.

I don't see how US actions were illegal or immoral. They were to punish Saddam at the least possible cost to our side, meaning that we did not want to restart the war ... at least not then.

The actions were designed to cripple Saddam's ruling power and that we did, again, very well within the rights of the victor to punish any violation of the terms of surrender. Just because Saddam refused to look after his own people does not shift that responsibility to us. We were not occupiers.

We also have a legal obligation not to impose an unjust peace on the civilians and to further the cause of peace. We did neither, nor did we cripple Saddam's ability to rule Iraq.

Dreadnaught,

I really do hope your ra ra ra for our side is right. Because if our nations leaders feel as you do and are wrong we're getting screwed.

Dreadnought
12 Jun 08,, 18:25
We also have a legal obligation not to impose an unjust peace on the civilians and to further the cause of peace. We did neither, nor did we cripple Saddam's ability to rule Iraq.

Dreadnaught,

I really do hope your ra ra ra for our side is right. Because if our nations leaders feel as you do and are wrong we're getting screwed.

A game of chess my friend with no immediate winner just possible solutions to the problems.

As far as the ra ra goes I would my rather see a nation (my nation) win the game of chess. Everybody knows Irans antics are but spoiled children and religious bullying and terror funding because no self respecting leader of a nation would spew the things this man does and they havent yanked him from his position yet so they must not mind what he says and chances are as looney as he is. So what are we do except call his hand. The powers that be could remove him in a second but why dont they? Because he is doing their bidding and nothing more.

For everything this man says he will be lucky if his country dont end up in the toilet end of the nuclear issue and the U.S. more then likely wont be the ones to do it but if they retaliate against us reprisal will be swift no doubt. Saddam went down the very same road with the U.N. and sanctions and look what it got him and his people. Bush has declared time and time again he would rather resolve it diplomaticly and yet this idiot continues his rants and ignores the U.N. so who is responsible for the consequences?

Officer of Engineers
12 Jun 08,, 20:13
We also have a legal obligation not to impose an unjust peace on the civilians and to further the cause of peace. We did neither, nor did we cripple Saddam's ability to rule Iraq.Z,

Please provide the context of this legal obligation. Under what statue is defined an unjust peace? I know of no such concept within either the Hague, the GC, nor the LOAC.

I'm trying to follow you but I know of no legal obligation of a victor to watch over the rule of the defeated except in the case of occupation and that was not the case.

zraver
13 Jun 08,, 00:29
Z,

Please provide the context of this legal obligation. Under what statue is defined an unjust peace? I know of no such concept within either the Hague, the GC, nor the LOAC.

I'm trying to follow you but I know of no legal obligation of a victor to watch over the rule of the defeated except in the case of occupation and that was not the case.

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Preamble to the UN Charter.

No if those are just words, then they impose no obligation. But in America where treaties have equal weight with the US Constitution the way we treated the Iraqi people was illegal.

Dreadnaught,


As far as the ra ra goes I would my rather see a nation (my nation) win the game of chess. Everybody knows Irans antics are but spoiled children and religious bullying and terror funding because no self respecting leader of a nation would spew the things this man does

If we are going to win the game of chess, then under estimating our foes as spoiled children is not the way to do it. As for no self respecting leader- most of the political giants of the last 100 years used similar language.

heres a taste- We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

who is it?


and they havent yanked him from his position yet so they must not mind what he says and chances are as looney as he is. So what are we do except call his hand. The powers that be could remove him in a second but why dont they? Because he is doing their bidding and nothing more.

I am thinking history is not your specialty. Iran is in the midst of a hidden power struggle that can only end up one way. The Ayatollah Komeini didn't trust the Iranian Armed forces so he created an elite unit loyal to him and his ideals. He gave the Revolutionary Guards social and military power. However that same group now has added to its portfolio political and economic power. It is now richer than the clerics, has a former member as president etc. This group and groups like them create a dual system where ultimate control in in doubt. The Supreme leader might have more real power, but he might not. The Council of Guardians has made statements condemning A-jad and it is unlikely he will get another term. But any move to force him out before hand might just require a compromise the clerics are unwilling to make, or quite possibly- they simply no longer have the real power. Islam has a long history of this situation:Mamluks and Janniseries being just two examples. We could very easily get sucked into a war forced on both Iran and the US by the Guards.


So what are we do except call his hand.

You don't seem to think he is holding a very good hand. I agree the US has aces and most of the face cards, but we still have to play our cards right. Iran has some advantages. The area of operations is confined and they know where the fight will be. They have one of the worlds largest inventories of sea mines- much larger and more advanced than 1988 BTW. They have one of the largest fleets of fast attack craft, the largest fleet of armed speed boats (boghammers), lots of armed helicopters, lots of humint, well fortified shore installations, 3 subs designed for littoral combat, and 6-10 other subs of varying utility, lots of modern anti-ship missiles, lots of ballistic missiles, and very dedicated personnel. Now this might be all for naught, but it might not be. We are at the disadvantage of betting our pride and the worlds economy on being the big fish in the pond. If war comes Iran suffers regardless of what they do, so they will do all they can.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jun 08,, 03:21
No if those are just words, then they impose no obligation.Z,

Are we reading the same thing?


to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,The Kuwait War was in response to an illegal Iraqi action which is save Kuwait from the scourge of Saddam.


to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,To reaffirm faith. That is not an obligation.


establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintainedWhich again would reference the GC, the Haque, and the LOAC and again, nothing in there obliges us any responsibility to the people under Saddam's rule.


for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoplesHow is this a legal obligation?

zraver
13 Jun 08,, 04:16
Z,

Are we reading the same thing?

I believe so


The Kuwait War was in response to an illegal Iraqi action which is save Kuwait from the scourge of Saddam.

No doubt, but after the ceasefire we left the Iraqi people to his tender mercies, that was bad enough. But we added to thier misery with sanctions that did not hurt Saddam one bit.




Which again would reference the GC, the Haque, and the LOAC and again, nothing in there obliges us any responsibility to the people under Saddam's rule.

How is this a legal obligation?

The sanctions prevented the economic and social advancement of the Iraqi peoples. They did nothing to hurt Saddam, only the people he ruled.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jun 08,, 04:46
No doubt, but after the ceasefire we left the Iraqi people to his tender mercies, that was bad enough. But we added to thier misery with sanctions that did not hurt Saddam one bit.But this statement
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, is not a legal obligation to protect the people under Saddam's rule nor is it a legal text to prevent the sanctions being put into place.


The sanctions prevented the economic and social advancement of the Iraqi peoples. They did nothing to hurt Saddam, only the people he ruled.Again, both of these quotes have no real legal obligation. Reaffirming faith is not enforcement. And referencing international law is too vague unless you can point to the specific stature stating this legal obligation to protect the Iraqis from Saddam's rule. Again, the only statures I am aware of that deal with this - the Hague, the Geneva Conventions, and the LOAC have no text dealing with an obligation to protect those not under occupation.

zraver
13 Jun 08,, 06:25
But this statement is not a legal obligation to protect the people under Saddam's rule nor is it a legal text to prevent the sanctions being put into place.

Again, both of these quotes have no real legal obligation. Reaffirming faith is not enforcement. And referencing international law is too vague unless you can point to the specific stature stating this legal obligation to protect the Iraqis from Saddam's rule. Again, the only statures I am aware of that deal with this - the Hague, the Geneva Conventions, and the LOAC have no text dealing with an obligation to protect those not under occupation.

Sir the text i quoted was from a treaty, by thier nature every word in a ratified treaty has the weight of law behind it.

The Charter opens with "to save" this is an action, not a reaffirmation.

"and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" -One can hardly argue that international machinery was used to promote the social and economic benefit of the Iraqi people. In fact both UN commissioners in charge of over seeing the sanctions resigned in protest over the ill treatment the common Iraqi got because of the sanctions.

Furthermore the sanctions were in direct violation of the UDHR

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Iraq could not provide those things because of the Sanctions and war damage. Saddam provided these things before the sanctions, he could not even had he wanted to, do so after 1991 because we placed Iraq's income under severe restrictions and took most of the money they did have to pay reparations.

Officer of Engineers
13 Jun 08,, 15:06
Sir the text i quoted was from a treaty, by thier nature every word in a ratified treaty has the weight of law behind it.Not disputing the weight, just the wording that obliges the action you seek.


The Charter opens with "to save" this is an action, not a reaffirmation.Actually it opens with

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINEDDetermined is a key word here. It could mean to try. It does not mean up hold, to guarantee, to protect the rights of.


"and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" -One can hardly argue that international machinery was used to promote the social and economic benefit of the Iraqi people. In fact both UN commissioners in charge of over seeing the sanctions resigned in protest over the ill treatment the common Iraqi got because of the sanctions.I am not disputing how the UN was used contrary to its intent but where in there does it say that sanctions cannot be used to punish a wrong action?

Even in the US, a convicted felon does not have the all the rights guarranteed in your Constitution. I know you kept saying that Saddam was not the Iraqi people but for all legal purposes, Saddam was Iraq.


Furthermore the sanctions were in direct violation of the UDHR

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Iraq could not provide those things because of the Sanctions and war damage. Saddam provided these things before the sanctions, he could not even had he wanted to, do so after 1991 because we placed Iraq's income under severe restrictions and took most of the money they did have to pay reparations.Iraq did provide those, just not up to some standard that is not defined by any treaty or international law.

A well and pipes are both sources of water. Just because your pipes are gone does not mean the well is gone.

We're talking past each other here, Z but if I find your argument unconvincing using your own text, imagine what a lawyer could do.

Dreadnought
13 Jun 08,, 15:14
heres a taste- We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

who is it?

1) Yes I do know history not as well as some here but IMO I do pretty well.

*Without even giving a thought Churchill. Churchill also saw what Germany was becoming a very big danger however he was laughed at by the House until Germany invaded Poland and went on the offensive. Nobody believed Churchhill until countries started falling to Hitler and the slaughter began. Then ofcoarse they praised him for doing what needed to be done to protect his island.

"I am thinking history is not your specialty. Iran is in the midst of a hidden power struggle that can only end up one way. The Ayatollah Komeini didn't trust the Iranian Armed forces so he created an elite unit loyal to him and his ideals. He gave the Revolutionary Guards social and military power. However that same group now has added to its portfolio political and economic power. It is now richer than the clerics, has a former member as president etc. This group and groups like them create a dual system where ultimate control in in doubt. The Supreme leader might have more real power, but he might not. The Council of Guardians has made statements condemning A-jad and it is unlikely he will get another term. But any move to force him out before hand might just require a compromise the clerics are unwilling to make, or quite possibly- they simply no longer have the real power. Islam has a long history of this situation:Mamluks and Janniseries being just two examples. We could very easily get sucked into a war forced on both Iran and the US by the Guards"

*And they will meet the very same fate Saddams Elite Guard met themselves. If you know so much about history then you know it didnt take very long. The only chance they will get would be the transit because after that they will get steamrolled into the sand outright and all of the Russian arms and equiptment wont help them.

*Personally I dont five a rats ass about their problems, This shows just how antique/pathetic their thinking is i.e. a power struggle at home, Threats to another country, Suppling weapons and training to terrorists that attack our troops inside Iraq, and now wanting to confront the U.S.? You call it whatever you wish myself, I call it a date with destiny if they continue.

"If we are going to win the game of chess, then under estimating our foes as spoiled children is not the way to do it. As for no self respecting leader- most of the political giants of the last 100 years used similar language"

*If we were underestimating our foes their would be a huge crater in the ground at their reactor/processing facility. (Syria found out the hard way) and Bashars regime still denies anything was there BUT we knew different. Well the Israeli's were convinced as well so they made sure nothing is there now. Just what makes you think that was not a sudden hint to Iran as far as Israel is concerned. The writing is on the wall if they are to dumb to read it then who are we to blame them meaning Israel.

*There is a big difference in the way the world was then and the world is now.

*You cannot call for the destruction of another nation outright and cast contrast on a jewish population and not expect the world to respond. It is barbaric and the response you get for doing so you most certainly deserve.
IMO I would not blame Israel if they blew Iran of the map for calling for their destruction. I mean what idiot knowing they have a jewish population (such as Iran does have) would not only insult their own people but threaten another country. You get what you deserve and sure enough theirs is coming sooner then they know. The funny thing will be when they cry afterwards because I will bet the world will turn a deaf ear to them for allowing this man to make such claims and I certainly wouldnt blame them.

*The U.N. has put forth numerous sanctions and just like Saddam they are being ignored and considering history (SINCE THIS SEEMS TO BE YOUR STRONGPOINT) thats not a very good solution to the problem and we all know what follows. Threatening war due to religious reasons is pathetic and will certainly lead to the war they sooo much desire and truthfully if Israel believes they have created the bomb how long do you think they will wait. Prudence damands they will strike first in defense of their nation just like we did knowing other countries were working on the very same thing during WWII and would strike as soon as they gained the capability.

"You don't seem to think he is holding a very good hand. I agree the US has aces and most of the face cards, but we still have to play our cards right. Iran has some advantages. The area of operations is confined and they know where the fight will be. They have one of the worlds largest inventories of sea mines- much larger and more advanced than 1988 BTW. They have one of the largest fleets of fast attack craft, the largest fleet of armed speed boats (boghammers), lots of armed helicopters, lots of humint, well fortified shore installations, 3 subs designed for littoral combat, and 6-10 other subs of varying utility, lots of modern anti-ship missiles, lots of ballistic missiles, and very dedicated personnel. Now this might be all for naught, but it might not be. We are at the disadvantage of betting our pride and the worlds economy on being the big fish in the pond. If war comes Iran suffers regardless of what they do, so they will do all they can.

*Do they really know where the fight will be? Did Saddam know where the fight will be? If you are a history buff then you know full well the U.S. does its homework when it comes to war and you also know how that turned out.
Do you also know how many U.S. battlegroups are out their and how fast then can close on that area? I truelly dont think you do.

*Namely why fight in the Straights when there are plenty of targets further inland to pick off at our leisure I can think of quite a few including their oil reserves as well. Their navy? Lets just not go there because they would get the ass handed to them faster then you think and much faster then they think as well. When was the last time you studied the U.S. inventory since you seem to know somewhat of the Iranian inventory?

*You seem to think this is about pride? Where you get that from I'm not sure but I can assure you the U.S. dont go to war for pride. To hold oil resouces captive from us and other nations when not in your waters (international mind you quoted above in last posting) now there is a reason and so is threatening the destruction of another and suppling men and training and weaponry to terrorists battling our troops in another country? Yes I could say they would be a very good reason. If thats what their "religion" calls for then so be it will be met with a response and one their own people I assure you wont enjoy.

Irans fate is in its own hands we will just react to situations that they themselves cause plain and simple.

zraver
13 Jun 08,, 15:58
heres a taste- We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

who is it?

1) Yes I do know history not as well as some here but IMO I do pretty well.

*Without even giving a thought Churchill. Churchill also saw what Germany was becoming a very big danger however he was laughed at by the House until Germany invaded Poland and went on the offensive. Nobody believed Churchhill until countries started falling to Hitler and the slaughter began. Then ofcoarse they praised him for doing what needed to be done to protect his island.

You praise Churchill for being far seeing, and then dismiss Iran. Do you see the contradiction?



*And they will meet the very same fate Saddams Elite Guard met themselves. If you know so much about history then you know it didnt take very long. The only chance they will get would be the transit because after that they will get steamrolled into the sand outright and all of the Russian arms and equiptment wont help them.

It took 6 months to gather the forces to defeat the Republican Guards. Even then the RG fought well and bravely, they were simply overmatched. However unlike the RG, the Pasadran's weapons at sea are fully capable to damaging American equipment.


*Personally I dont five a rats ass about their problems, This shows just how antique/pathetic their thinking is i.e. a power struggle at home, Threats to another country, Suppling weapons and training to terrorists that attack our troops inside Iraq, and now wanting to confront the U.S.? You call it whatever you wish myself, I call it a date with destiny if they continue.

Quite possibly, but what will it cost us?




*If we were underestimating our foes their would be a huge crater in the ground at their reactor/processing facility. (Syria found out the hard way) and Bashars regime still denies anything was there BUT we knew different.

I looked at the pics and watched the video and that does not look like a reactor complex to me.




Well the Israeli's were convinced as well so they made sure nothing is there now. Just what makes you think that was not a sudden hint to Iran as far as Israel is concerned. The writing is on the wall if they are to dumb to read it then who are we to blame them meaning Israel.

Because Israel can't reach all of the Iranian nuclear sites.


*There is a big difference in the way the world was then and the world is now.

*You cannot call for the destruction of another nation outright and cast contrast on a jewish population and not expect the world to respond. It is barbaric and the response you get for doing so you most certainly deserve.
IMO I would not blame Israel if they blew Iran of the map for calling for their destruction. I mean what idiot knowing they have a jewish population (such as Iran does have) would not only insult their own people but threaten another country. You get what you deserve and sure enough theirs is coming sooner then they know. The funny thing will be when they cry afterwards because I will bet the world will turn a deaf ear to them for allowing this man to make such claims and I certainly wouldnt blame them.

Possibly, but again what will thier destruction cost us?


*The U.N. has put forth numerous sanctions and just like Saddam they are being ignored and considering history (SINCE THIS SEEMS TO BE YOUR STRONGPOINT) thats not a very good solution to the problem and we all know what follows. Threatening war due to religious reasons is pathetic and will certainly lead to the war they sooo much desire and truthfully if Israel believes they have created the bomb how long do you think they will wait. Prudence damands they will strike first in defense of their nation just like we did knowing other countries were working on the very same thing during WWII and would strike as soon as they gained the capability.

Israel lacks the ability to take down Iran.


*Do they really know where the fight will be? Did Saddam know where the fight will be? If you are a history buff then you know full well the U.S. does its homework when it comes to war and you also know how that turned out.
Do you also know how many U.S. battlegroups are out their and how fast then can close on that area? I truelly dont think you do.

Thanks to the US navy we know how many carriers are at sea at any one time. Only those ships actually at sea are hard to track for an internet slueth or foreign intelligence service.

The fight will be in the Straits of Hormuz because they plan to block the flow of oil. To stop that we have to meet and beat them there.

As for the US doing its homework. Care to debate that point with the Ghost of Lt Colonel Smith, or the perhaps the living Gen Tommy Franks and gen Garrison. The US is quite capable of walking into traps and blunders.


*Namely why fight in the Straights when there are plenty of targets further inland to pick off at our leisure I can think of quite a few including their oil reserves as well. Their navy? Lets just not go there because they would get the ass handed to them faster then you think and much faster then they think as well. When was the last time you studied the U.S. inventory since you seem to know somewhat of the Iranian inventory?

We have to fight in the strait to prevent it from being mined and closed.

As for the US inventory, I have never doubted its capability, but riddle me this batman. What does the navy do if Iran traps a carrier in the PG and has more attack craft than the navy has missiles?


*You seem to think this is about pride? Where you get that from I'm not sure but I can assure you the U.S. dont go to war for pride.

Then why are we in Iraq, or why didn't we at least wait until OBL was dead/captured?


To hold oil resouces captive from us and other nations when not in your waters (international mind you quoted above in last posting) now there is a reason and so is threatening the destruction of another and suppling men and training and weaponry to terrorists battling our troops in another country? Yes I could say they would be a very good reason. If thats what their "religion" calls for then so be it will be met with a response and one their own people I assure you wont enjoy.

Irans fate is in its own hands we will just react to situations that they themselves cause plain and simple.

I hope we never find out.

zraver
13 Jun 08,, 16:28
Not disputing the weight, just the wording that obliges the action you seek.

Actually it opens with
Determined is a key word here. It could mean to try. It does not mean up hold, to guarantee, to protect the rights of.

I am not disputing how the UN was used contrary to its intent but where in there does it say that sanctions cannot be used to punish a wrong action?

I never said sanctions cannot be used to punish a wrong action. But the sanctions in Iraq did not do that. Saddam was not affected by them.


Even in the US, a convicted felon does not have the all the rights guarranteed in your Constitution. I know you kept saying that Saddam was not the Iraqi people but for all legal purposes, Saddam was Iraq.

In the Us we do not hold a felons family responsible for the felons actions. In Iraq we punished the Iraqi people for Saddam, after denying them the support they needed to oust him. Saddam was only Iraq after 1991 because we allowed it. We put him in power, and we kept him in power.


Iraq did provide those, just not up to some standard that is not defined by any treaty or international law.

A well and pipes are both sources of water. Just because your pipes are gone does not mean the well is gone.

Food and medical imports were banned, as were imports to repair the water and sewer grids, power generation, educational materials and building supplies etc.


We're talking past each other here, Z but if I find your argument unconvincing using your own text, imagine what a lawyer could do.

Two former UN commissioner for Iraq and a WFP administrator for Iraq agree with me.

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy"[19]. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.

OoE, please read all of this

The humanitarian situation in Iraq, the humanitarian program 'Oil for Food', and Human Rights

Jutta Burghardt
Official of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and former Representative and Country Director of the World Food Program in Iraq, 1999-2000

Jutta Burghardt was the Representative and Country Director of the World Food Program in Iraq from January 1999 to March 2000, when she resigned in protest for the prolongation of sanctions against this country and especially after the approval of the Resolution 1284 by the Security Council in December 1999. This Resolution, which passed with the affirmative votes of USA ang Great Britain and the abstentions of French, Russia and China, brought the question on the embargo against Iraq to a dead end after ten years of continued application of sanctions since August 1990. Burghardt´s resignation followed those of the two former Coordinators of the Humanitarian Program of UN for Iraq, Mr. Dennis J. Halliday and Mr. Hans von Sponeck. Both resigned for similar reasons in 1999 and 2000 respectively, protesting against the obstructionist and manipulating policy of USA and Great Britain regarding the 'Oil for Food' Program (SC Resolution 986). In this unpublished paper, Ms. Burghardt reviews the violations of the International Law generated by the application of sanctions against Iraq, and recounts her own experience during her stay in the country. The text, addressed to the Arab Cause Solidarity Committee by her author in July 2001, was previously presented at the International Conference 'Embargo and Human Rights in Iraq' organized in Baghdad on May 8-9th, 2001 by 'Baytol Hikma' institution. Currently, Jutta Burghardt has rejoined the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation in Bonn. [CSCAweb]

I.
Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly said that "(...) the humanitarian situation in Iraq had posed a 'serious moral dilemma' for the Organization. The United Nations had always been on the side of the vulnerable and the weak, and had always sought to relieve suffering, yet here it was accused of 'causing' suffering to an entire population."

Here, the Secretary General points out an important feature of the relationship between the UN and Iraq. I appreciate his awareness, since the Humanitarian Program for Iraq is under his supervision.

Indeed, there is a gap between the actions of the Security Council on Iraq under the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Instruments of the organization. While Article 24 of the UN-Charter binds the Security Council to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, the Sanctions Regime for Iraq issued by that body leads to gross violations of human rights and established international law.

The sanctions on Iraq are the most severe and the most prolonged that had ever been imposed on a country in human history. In addition, the trade embargo established under SCR 661 is accompanied by unilaterally imposed and permanent military aggression of a lower and sometimes greater intensity, thereby constituting, together with the trade sanctions, a classical blockade as we know it since historical times. All of us are aware that this embargo almost exclusively hits the common person.

The humanitarian program in Iraq (issued under Chapter VII and thus being part of the Sanctions Regime) does not provide for the protection of human rights in Iraq. It would not even do so if it were carried out fully, in good faith and without its present politicization. It is a short -breathed care and maintenance- operation of a similar kind as we find in regular emergency operations around the world, treating the Iraqi population as if they lived in a refugee camp. This program cannot compensate for the full-fledged activities of the State, and is no substitute for the economic activities of a whole nation.

Human Rights are valid universally, and they are indivisible. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states expressly, that the rights enshrined in it are to be applied also under circumstances of impeded or reduced sovereignty (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10. December 1948). Thus, they apply in Iraq.

II.
Article II of the Genocide Convention (1949) defines, inter alia, as genocide the "deliberate imposition of conditions of life that are conducive to partially or totally destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group."

a) There can be no doubt whatsoever that the imposition of the sanctions on Iraq by the Security Council is leading to partially or totally destroying a nation, and that this concept was and continues to be deliberately and intentionally applied. The Security Council had been very well aware of the situation in Iraq right from the start. Immediately after the Gulf War and as early as 1991, Marti Athissari and Saddruddin Aga Khan made two reports for the Secretary General. Especially the latter devolved the mechanism employed by the Oil for Food Program, saying the situation of the people of Iraq and the destruction of the material infrastructure were so grave, that assistance of international donors would not suffice to save the country from its near apocalyptic situation. Instead, proceeds from Iraqi oil should be used.

b) In addition, Madeleine Albright in an interview with CBS said -while still being Permanent Representative to the UN and in that function the decisive member of the Security Council- hen she was asked whether the death of 500.000 Iraqi children was worth the price: "It was a difficult choice, but -yes- it was worth the price". This statement should be shocking to anybody, but it is especially so for a German before the background of German national history. Ms. Albright indeed underlines that the destruction of a nation - genocide- was and continues to be intended.

c) The Belgian international law expert Marc Bossuyt is unambiguously clear on this. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights (Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights -E/CN.4/SUB.2/2000/33) of 21 June 2000 he says (Paragraph 72):

"The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It does not matter that this deliberate physical destruction has as its ostensible objective the security of the region. Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect * the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions. The sanctioning bodies cannot be absolved from having the 'intent to destroy' the Iraqi people. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations in fact admitted this; when questioned whether the half million deaths were 'worth it', she replied: 'we think the price is worth it'. The states imposing the sanctions could raise questions under the genocide Convention."

In addition, and what is most important, in his recommendations Marc Bossuyt states that sanctions which violate international law, and especially human rights, need not be respected. And he raises the question of compensation.

d) The Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which were endorsed by the General assembly of the United Nations, emphasize that there exists an individual responsibility vis-à-vis instructions. I quote:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

e) In this context, it is important to know -and I wish my former colleagues in the Iraq Program of the United Nations were aware of it- that the Genocide Convention as well as the Nuremberg Principles establish that complicity to a crime against humanity is a crime under international law. I personally believe that assisting to veil the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people amounts to complicity, and I decided that a moral choice had been available to me.

I will now highlight some fundamental human rights provisions and relate them to the situation of the Iraqi people. Naturally, features are overlapping. Often reality covers more than one provision. In addition, what I have to say is certainly not new to this assembly.

III.
Violation of The Right to Life, Liberty and the Security of Person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3)

a) SCR 687 stipulates that a cease-fire is in force upon official acceptance of that resolution by Iraq, which had been done. Nevertheless, regular bombardments occur in the unilaterally imposed so-called no fly-zones that have killed and wounded citizens of Basra and elsewhere, including young shepherds. Are those people in the South aware that according to the official version of those who have established these zones the attacks are carried out "for their protection"?

b) Since UNICEF published its carefully elaborated study in 1999 it has become common knowledge and an internationally accepted fact that 500.000 Iraqi children have lost their lives because of the sanctions. Altogether more than 1,4 million Iraqi citizens have become victims of the embargo until today.



IV.
Violation of The Right to Adequate Standard of Living

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11:

"1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
"2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programs, which are needed (...)."

a) Under the embargo almost all domestic industrial economic activities are on hold. As a consequence, there are hardly any jobs and hardly any income possibilities, and no tax revenues for the state.

b) In March 1999, the Iraqi Minister for Labour and Social Affairs told me, that only 40 percent of industries were operational with a production volume of 10 percent. According to his assessment, 90 to 95 percent of the Iraqis live below the poverty line. This Ministry would usually provide those who live in abject poverty with some small means of living. However, in 1994 the registration of the destitute had been halted since the Ministry was no longer able to cope with their increasing numbers.

c) Before sanctions, Iraq had been close to becoming a First World Country, thanks to the efforts of the present government after years of internal unrest and centuries of neglect. Iraq had become indeed a regional Arab power. You still find the relics of those achievements today.

d) Social data had been excellent before sanctions. According to UNESCO, the rate of literacy had been 95 percent, proving that the Government implemented the Right to Education including the provision on compulsory primary education -which it is unable to enforce any longer- and for which it had been awarded a UNESCO prize. In March 2000 literacy had gone down to just 58 percent with a rate of further reduction expected to be 5 percent per year.

e) The Iraqi society has been almost entirely cut off from interchange with the rest of the world (violates the Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its application). This gap will be extremely difficult to bridge for the people and especially for the generation growing up today. Even if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, rebuilding the society including the reconstitution of the individual abilities would take many years if that were possible at all. The deterioration of education, including professional education, will have long-term effects on at least one generation. Children who never went to school will never be able to make good for that loss.

f) To be under the daily pressure -for more than ten years now- to support one's family is tremendously exhausting. Illness in one's family if you cannot do much to help as well as dis-investments in lives and dreams lost create depression and hopelessness. I found it extremely heartening to see the loss of opportunities in life of a people of 25 million. Among the personnel of the humanitarian program we counted 60 percent as being fully qualified professionals doing sub-standard work. Our drivers were mostly engineers and agriculturists. I even had a pilot and a bank director in my team.

g) The Iraqi middle class is not only impoverished because of lack of work and income possibilities, but also because their savings and former investments have shrunk to zero. The depreciation of the Iraqi Dinar vis-à-vis the US-$ amounts to 6,000 percent, while the average income amounts to 5,000 to 6,000 Dinar. Theses are approximately 2,5 to 3 US-$. (Before sanctions the Dinar was worth 3.3 US-$, today it is 0,004 US-$.)

h) It is the cumulative effect of sanctions, the continuing deprivation for more than ten years in a continuing war situation that causes the Iraqi society to disintegrate and the Iraqi people to be destroyed. Many Iraqi people told me that each day they survive is a miracle to them.

i) Since more than ten years, the Iraqi people receive just staple food: wheat flour, rice, some beans or lentils, some milk powder, vegetable oil, salt, sugar and tea -no fresh food such as vegetables, fruit, fresh milk products and meat (infringes upon The Right to Food). Many who have no other sources of income have to barter food basket items for other means of livelihood. In the years 1999/2000 our routine observation showed that two thirds of the population in Center/South of Iraq had their monthly food ration consumed within 20 days. We have always asked ourselves, how this group lived during the rest of the month. To make things worse, there had been a Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 1999 in Iraq that killed more than a million animals. There also had been since the end of 1998 a severe drought in the region, which had additional harmful effects on the domestic harvest, on the animal owners and on the supply of clean water to the people. On both issues the Sanctions Committee had provided insufficient relief to Iraq. Just contrast this to the panic that was seizing the European Community on the issue of Foot and Mouth Disease!

j) That the condition of the society is not even worse than it is today is admirable and must be in my view attributed to the great discipline, industriousness, practical intelligence and unbelievable stamina of the Iraqi people.

V.
The Right to Health

International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12:

"1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
"2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
(a) The provision for the reduction of still-birth and of infant mortality
And for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions, which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness."

a) Before sanctions, the health system of Iraq had been the envy of the region. We all know that today the health condition of the Iraqis as well as the health care system is in a desolate situation. Life expectancy is reduced. Many Iraqi children are stunted from lack of adequate food. But a chronic food deficiency does not only create physical insufficiencies, it has negative effects on mental abilities as well. On the occasion of a program that we carried out in Iraq, the Government told us they had registered 700.000 malnourished children under the age of five.

b) Not only had Iraq been heavily destroyed during the Gulf War; ammunition coated with depleted uranium had been used for the first time. During my visits to the South I had been alerted and shocked. My impression was: This area is no longer inhabitable for human beings.

c) Most of you here will be aware of the facts, but I will repeat here the information received from the WHO Representative in Iraq, from Iraqi experts and from the German Professors Günther and Schott. The issue at hand relates of course also to the Right to Life and the Genocide Convention. When used the DU-ammunition releases chemically toxic and radioactive particles in form of an aerosol. DU emits mainly alpha particles and has a half-life of 4,5 billion years. In the human body it is chiefly deposited in the bones, and attacks the bone marrow as well as the DNA. In Iraq the toxic materials have now entered the food chain. Particularly in Basra Province much of it was absorbed into the ground waters. All in all, more than 300 t of DU-materials are still buried in Iraqi grounds.

d) The Iraqi administration has more than 1000 persons -soldiers and their families- under observation. An increase in cancer cases was observed only as late as 1996/97 -five years after the events. Further increases are expected over the coming years. The Iraqi experts assume, but were not able to prove -in spite of having approached relevant organizations several times, including WHO since 1995- that the increase in leukemia, the appearance of rare types of cancer, of lymphoma, of cancer of kidneys, lung and pancreas, are due to DU - ammunitions that were used by USA (and to a lesser extent by UK). The Iraqi experts have also observed sterility in men and women (especially in youth), and rare deformations, such as children without or with deformed arms, without fingers, with deformed heads, without or with deformed eyes, or without ears. They also observed an especially high increase in breast cancer, particularly in young women of 17 to 20 years. Also observed was deformation in animals.

VI.
The Right to Self-determination

Part I Article 1, International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966:

"1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
"2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principal of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
"3. The States Parties to the present Covenant (...) shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."

a) The key element of the sanctions, including the mechanisms established under the Oil for Food-Program, is: the Government of Iraq must not trade, and especially not receive any proceeds from the oil sales, in other words not generate any foreign exchange. The exemption to the sanctions regime -the Oil for Food-Program- makes that very clear: the proceeds from the sale of oil go to an Escrow Account, which is controlled by the United Nations. We learned that Iraq couldn't even receive outdated equipment purchased by its own money. We were instructed to destroy these items instead.

b) The Oil for Food-Program is supposed to guarantee the supply of essential goods for the population of Iraq and to provide for investments in key infrastructure. It operates in the areas of food, medicine and medical equipment, electricity, agriculture, irrigation, water supply and sanitation, primary and higher education, transport and communication, building of houses, and the maintenance and rehabilitation of the oil production, the latter being the key income source for the financing of those humanitarian supplies.

c) All the goods that had been received by end-2000 represent a per capita outlay or investment of approximately 100 US-$ per person/year, of which about 75 US-$ are spent on the food basket alone, which is usually the most expensive item in any emergency program. Under the program, components are often lacking and specifications are not met. Although the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the application of normal commercial practices, until today Iraq is not allowed to apply them in the contracting of food items. This leads, of course, to suppliers potentially and actually exploiting the Iraqi situation. Thus, in addition to the low performance rate of the program because of so many blocked contracts (value as of today 9 April 2001 3.4 billion US-$), many of the items that are in the hands of the Iraqis are useless (especially in the agriculture, food and medical sectors).

d) When I arrived in January 1999, the Iraqi Government needed money for the internal transport, storage, handling and administration of the food operation alone in the amount of 160 billion Dinars per year. There are of course additional internal costs for all the other sectors of the Program, but especially for the oil sector. Clearly, this "humanitarian program" is harmful to the Iraqi economy in two ways:

e) First, until today the Government cannot use its money to cover their internal cost and is, therefore, forced to print the respective amounts -thereby increasing inflation and contributing to the depreciation of its currency. Secondly, all items of the program must be imported even if they are available in the country such as wheat, vegetable oil and salt. Its not only huge business for the rest of the world. Its also detrimental to the already suffering Iraqi economy.

f) However, in spite of the tremendous restrictions that the Government activities experience (reduced personnel, minimal salaries, hardly any possibility to check on companies abroad and deliveries, reduced transport facilities, tremendous restrictions in communication), the Ministry of Trade carries out the food supply operation -possibly the largest on the globe for such a long time- in the most efficient and effective manner. In Iraq, each and every of the almost 25 million citizens receives regularly his/her monthly ration.

g) In SCR 1284 (12 December 1999, the so-called Comprehensive Resolution introduced by the UK and relating to Kuwait compensation, humanitarian and disarmament chapters, an effort is made to give Iraq an incentive to co-operate in the disarmament area by introducing simplifications of procedure and other measures in the humanitarian area. However, instead of the lifting of sanctions (22, SCR 687) the resolution introduces a new element: a suspension of sanctions. And according to the Explanation of Vote by the US, such a suspension would not imply that the Iraqi Government would regain control over their oil proceeds.

h) In addition, the present deliberations of the US to introduce smart sanctions aim at tightening the UN-control over the oil proceeds, and promise more civilian goods to reach the country. However, without the Iraqi Government having control over its money, the logical conclusion would be that UN-activities are being enlarged accordingly. I believe it is impossible to manage the needs of a whole nation by an Office in New York, and through the cumbersome procedures that include the wilful holding of contracts . To me this would seem to be worse than the economic processes we have seen working in the most inefficiently organized centrally controlled economies of the past.

VII.
Prohibition of the State to Fulfil its Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

"1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures (Article 2)."

a) According to letter and spirit of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a Government is responsible for the welfare of its people and obliged to promote it. The Humanitarian Program is supposed to provide only the bare minimum of basic needs to the people in co-operation between the Government and the UN. However, the obstacles created by two members of the Sanctions Committee lead to a situation where the Government cannot fulfil even this task appropriately. And since hardly anybody is knowledgeable of the complicated set-up of the Program, it is easy for those same members to take advantage of this circumstance and reproach the Government for not fulfilling these basic tasks.

b) To conclude: Only a country that is able to exercise its right of self-determination is in a position to implement the International Covenant and fulfil the obligations it entered into when acceding to it. Iraq is being denied this right, which it had aptly fulfilled before sanctions by investing in education, health, infrastructure, and to which it is still committed as I was able to witness.

Perspective

a) I am pessimistic that the sanctions will ever be lifted. They are too good to be true! With sanctions in place, the Arabic Oil Region is under control, huge amounts of arms can be sold to the neighboring countries, and the potential regional power Iraq is reduced to a weak, disintegrating society -which if continued will pose another regional political problem.

b) However, in order for the Security Council to have no longer any pretext to prolong or continue to re-arrange the sanctions regime, Iraq should as soon as possible receive an endorsement by UNMOVIC that it is clear of weapons of mass destruction. And I am confident that the Iraqi Government will be ready to co-operate, if -but only if- they can expect fair treatment and the actual lifting of sanctions. A dialog to this effect had been started at the United Nations. Iraq must as soon as possible regain its right to self-determination in order to be able to resume its rightful place in the international community, including as a full OPEC-member and as a constructive actor in the regional context.

(July, 2001)

The humanitarian situation in Iraq, the humanitarian program 'Oil for Food', and Human Rights (http://www.nodo50.org/csca/english/petxalim-ddhh-eng.html)

Dreadnought
13 Jun 08,, 19:07
You praise Churchill for being far seeing, and then dismiss Iran. Do you see the contradiction?

*No, I dont, Churchill was concerned not only with the defence of his own country but also the plight of the Jewish people. The U.S. dont kill people on grounds of their religion never have never will there is 0 contrast in that context.

"It took 6 months to gather the forces to defeat the Republican Guards. Even then the RG fought well and bravely, they were simply overmatched. However unlike the RG, the Pasadran's weapons at sea are fully capable to damaging American equipment"

They could have been overmatched long before that but ofcoarse these days we must be "politically correct" because this is what the world media and politicians and critics thrive upon. Much much sooner!

They might be just that capable but what happens when we do it from prolonged range which is what doctrine will be followed?

"Quite possibly, but what will it cost us?"

*Trust from the rest of the world and thats about it. However, we dont want the world to fear that we are an Empiracle power, that is not our way nor shall it be. The people wont allow it no matter who sits in the Oval office. It is not the way America is no matter what the media reports.

"I looked at the pics and watched the video and that does not look like a reactor complex to me."

Tell you what when you work for those agencies and can act upon what you feel then that point may become relevant. The Israeli's are not perfect but can recognize a genuine threat and acted upon it. A country like that dont act unless they are certain their findings are supported by data because of the political ramifications involved. Wether right or wrong the signs were there and do you expect Bashars regime to tell the truth? Lebannon and such should give you a good look at how truthfull they have been. Another supporter of terror!


"Because Israel can't reach all of the Iranian nuclear sites."

*Really? Are you so sure of that? The very same country that fought wars against how many countries at once including Egypt? You might want to reconsider that statement.

"Possibly, but again what will thier destruction cost us?"

*Minus the media coverage and if we really wanted too? Nothing but tax payer money and criticism over whats left.

"Israel lacks the ability to take down Iran"

*A nuclear aresenal nation? What else would they need?

*How many boots did the U.S. put on Japanese homeland soil prior to the bombing that ended it all? Answer 0 Everything else was occupation.

"Thanks to the US navy we know how many carriers are at sea at any one time. Only those ships actually at sea are hard to track for an internet slueth or foreign intelligence service.

The fight will be in the Straits of Hormuz because they plan to block the flow of oil. To stop that we have to meet and beat them there.

*For one those battlegroups are continuelsy on the move conducting operations, training etc. And each carries more firepower the the Iranians could put together all in one from their derelect airforce including their newest friends weaponry.

*Tell me since you think you can tract them where are the subs normally attached to those battlesgroups? Answer: out there lurking and they arent being tracted/ You will never cage a USN CV without wasting your arsenal and what happens if her air group in launched prior and still another coming from another CV out ther in the deep blue? Nor when her sub escorts start raining missles?

"As for the US doing its homework. Care to debate that point with the Ghost of Lt Colonel Smith, or the perhaps the living Gen Tommy Franks and gen Garrison. The US is quite capable of walking into traps and blunders."

*Hows about Stormin Norman? Care to debate? Hows about we also include the CV battlesgroup commanders on station at that time? No body is perfect but my bets positively lay with the U.S. and her military.

"Then why are we in Iraq, or why didn't we at least wait until OBL was dead/captured?"

*On the offical side of that answer I would yield to Sheck or a few others of choice. If you did your homework as you claim to then you would know the correct reasoning from the false reasoning. Guess its not about oil huh? As so many care to believe. As far as OBL you notice that he wont stick his head out without fear of it being blown off. Time my friend, Nobody can out run it no matter how hard they try. As you will notice they are still prosecuting Nazi guards and the like for things 60 years ago. We try our best to repect others soverignty it will only be a matter of time. Either he will die of health problems and knowing he has to live in hiding under rocks like the maggot he is or he will die in a prison in a cage where he belongs. Makes no difference to me but he cant outrun time and that is a fact.

"I hope we never find out."

*I hope we dont either war is not something we wish for. Nobody in their right mind does. But we must be vigilante.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 08,, 00:50
In the Us we do not hold a felons family responsible for the felons actions. In Iraq we punished the Iraqi people for Saddam, after denying them the support they needed to oust him. Saddam was only Iraq after 1991 because we allowed it. We put him in power, and we kept him in power.But Iraq was the felon in this case and legally, Saddam was Iraq.


OoE, please read all of thisOk, while on the surface, there are a lot of things we've done wrong but I cannot help but to read that all of that was Saddam's responsibility, not ours.

Oil for food was supposed to bring in foreign foods, not buy local food for the Iraqis. Else, we be just freeing up funds.

I'm sorry but a country that can covert SA-2 to a SSM can't build a water pump?

The entire idea of Oil-for-food was to feed the Iraqi people, not free up funds for Saddam nor to help his economy. The very fact that he printed new monies meant he had the funds to support his internal economy albeit high inflation.

I cannot see where the responsibility for the Iraqi people shifted from Saddam to us.

Traxus
14 Jun 08,, 01:09
But Iraq was the felon in this case and legally, Saddam was Iraq.

Ok, while on the surface, there are a lot of things we've done wrong but I cannot help but to read that all of that was Saddam's responsibility, not ours.

Oil for food was supposed to bring in foreign foods, not buy local food for the Iraqis. Else, we be just freeing up funds.

I'm sorry but a country that can covert SA-2 to a SSM can't build a water pump?

The entire idea of Oil-for-food was to feed the Iraqi people, not free up funds for Saddam nor to help his economy. The very fact that he printed new monies meant he had the funds to support his internal economy albeit high inflation.

I cannot see where the responsibility for the Iraqi people shifted from Saddam to us.

"The entire idea of Oil-for-food was to feed the Iraqi people..."

Yes, that was the idea. However, it became clear that this idea was not working. Why wasn't it working? Saddam was exploiting it. As a result, people starved. So you then have sanctions that are causing starvation. Saddam is primarily responsible, but you still have US sanctions that are killing people. They know they're killing people, yet they do not stop the sanctions. The US is responsible for this, since they could stop it if they wanted to.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 08,, 01:14
They know they're killing people, yet they do not stop the sanctions. The US is responsible for this, since they could stop it if they wanted to.And help Saddam even more?

And what legal precedence shifted the responsibility from Saddam to the US?

zraver
14 Jun 08,, 02:02
And help Saddam even more?

And what legal precedence shifted the responsibility from Saddam to the US?

becuase we knew the sanctions were not working and chose not to change them to shift the pain from the common and innocent Iraqi to Saddam and his elites. The sanctions were our baby and we chose to keep the pain applied to the wrong people. If Oil for food wasn't working, not mention the sanctions as a whole then we should have done something else. Hell we could have taken Iraqi oil directly and current global prices and shipped in food stuffs and medicine of the same value cutting Saddam out of the loop but we didn't.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 08,, 02:23
Lifting sanctions would be the last thing to do. You're giving Saddam even more of a free hand. And cutting Saddam out of the Oil-for-food loop would even give him more of a free hand. He doesn't have to account for that money and shift the food responsibility, both local and foreign, all onto foreign organizations.

The only effective way of taking Saddam out of the loop is the way that was done - invasion.

zraver
14 Jun 08,, 02:46
*No, I dont, Churchill was concerned not only with the defence of his own country but also the plight of the Jewish people. The U.S. dont kill people on grounds of their religion never have never will there is 0 contrast in that context.


I don't know how you got from Churchill to who the US kills but...

We have killed people based on religion, color, and creed.


Tell you what when you work for those agencies and can act upon what you feel then that point may become relevant. The Israeli's are not perfect but can recognize a genuine threat and acted upon it. A country like that dont act unless they are certain their findings are supported by data because of the political ramifications involved. Wether right or wrong the signs were there and do you expect Bashars regime to tell the truth? Lebannon and such should give you a good look at how truthfull they have been. Another supporter of terror!

Where are the cooling ponds, power transmission lines, support buildings, waste storage pools, built up roads to support the reactor equipment being moved in etc.


*Really? Are you so sure of that? The very same country that fought wars against how many countries at once including Egypt? You might want to reconsider that statement.

Israel's arsenal does not have the range. They have two options- the airforce which might be able to make Tehran, or sub launched pop-eyes. Neither option can get really deep in Iran.


*Minus the media coverage and if we really wanted too? Nothing but tax payer money and criticism over whats left.

I think if war comes a good chunk of those tax dollars will be going out as SGLI payments. I think it behooves us to take Iran seriously so that if war does come, those payments are kept to a minimum.


*A nuclear aresenal nation? What else would they need?

If Israel nukes Iran, its the end of Israel.


*How many boots did the U.S. put on Japanese homeland soil prior to the bombing that ended it all? Answer 0 Everything else was occupation.

We had to spend irreplaceable blood to get close enough.



*For one those battlegroups are continuelsy on the move conducting operations, training etc. And each carries more firepower the the Iranians could put together all in one from their derelect airforce including their newest friends weaponry.

But Iran isn't relying on its airforce.


*Tell me since you think you can tract them where are the subs normally attached to those battlesgroups? Answer: out there lurking and they arent being tracted/ You will never cage a USN CV without wasting your arsenal and what happens if her air group in launched prior and still another coming from another CV out ther in the deep blue? Nor when her sub escorts start raining missles?

You still think I am debating a who will win scenario I am not. Iran is going to try and sink a carrier and shut off the oil. And if iran can throw more assets into the fight than the US can destroy- the carrier is in trouble.



*Hows about Stormin Norman? Care to debate? Hows about we also include the CV battlesgroup commanders on station at that time? No body is perfect but my bets positively lay with the U.S. and her military.

You said the US did its homework, I simply pointed out this is at best only a partial truth.


*On the offical side of that answer I would yield to Sheck or a few others of choice. If you did your homework as you claim to then you would know the correct reasoning from the false reasoning. Guess its not about oil huh? As so many care to believe.

I don't care what its about, because it was not about terror.


As far as OBL you notice that he wont stick his head out without fear of it being blown off. Time my friend, Nobody can out run it no matter how hard they try. As you will notice they are still prosecuting Nazi guards and the like for things 60 years ago. We try our best to repect others soverignty it will only be a matter of time. Either he will die of health problems and knowing he has to live in hiding under rocks like the maggot he is or he will die in a prison in a cage where he belongs. Makes no difference to me but he cant outrun time and that is a fact.

95% of all Nazi's got off scott free. I don't give a rats ass that OBL is hiding- he is neither dead nor imprisoned. he attacked my country, but my president had better things to do than bring him to justice.

Traxus
14 Jun 08,, 17:50
And help Saddam even more?

And what legal precedence shifted the responsibility from Saddam to the US?

The political consequences of lifting the sanctions are irrelevant. I'm not even saying that it would have been a good idea to lift the sanctions. The point is, that US sanctions were causing people harm. The US could have stopped doing this. That makes the responsibility partly theirs.

Officer of Engineers
14 Jun 08,, 18:10
The point is, that US sanctions were causing people harm. The US could have stopped doing this. That makes the responsibility partly theirs.Again, what legal precedence that obliges the US to accept this responsibility?

Parihaka
14 Jun 08,, 20:30
How is it that when you give someone some money, they don't spend it on their children who subsequently starve, you are then morally responsible to give them more money to not spend on their children?

zraver
14 Jun 08,, 22:16
How is it that when you give someone some money, they don't spend it on their children who subsequently starve, you are then morally responsible to give them more money to not spend on their children?

bad analogy, in the case of Iraq if Saddam is the parent, then the UN was Child Protective Services. The UN left Saddam in the money loop and in control of the civilian side of things when it knew he didn't care. And left the Iraqi people (allegorical children) being abused. They could have cut Saddam out of the money loop- that would have hurt him and allowed the UN to provide for the Iraqi people as they were obligated to do since the sanctions were a UN action. Saddam is not the one who blocked food and medical shipments, and limited oil sales to 1/6th of what was known to be needed to keep the Iraqi civilian economy going. These are UN actions, and so the UN vice USA/UK is to blame.

The US and UK chose to use the UN as a tool to inflict grevious harm on the Iraqi people, they did not harm Saddam. They did not even try to modify the sanctions to shift the pain away from civilians and onto Saddam and his elites. The US and UK sat by while 3 major UN officials resigned in protest over what was happening to the Iraqi people while Saddam built palaces becuase he was left in the money loop. At one point, of Iraqi's 1 billion in legal oil sales, only about 100 million came back to Iraq via the UN to help care for the Iraqi people. The rest went to reparations. 26 million people got 3 dollars a year from the UN for social services. These people did not make war on us, Saddam did. Most Iraqi's were prisoners to his madness being neither Tikriti or Sunni but Shia, Kurd, or Christian.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 08,, 04:04
Again, by what legal precedence did the responsibility for the Iraqi people shifted from Saddam to us?

Z, you keep saying we broke international law. I can't see it. There is no legal mechanism that says Saddam is only half a ruler or that he cannot do this or do that in his own country. Even the WMD destruction required his authority to co-operate. He signed the terms of surrender, meaning he himself accepted those terms of surrender by his authority.

I remain unconvinced that the US and the UK had broken any international law, not when they had no responsibility and therefore no authority on how Saddam treat his people.

Blademaster
15 Jun 08,, 04:54
I remain unconvinced that the US and the UK had broken any international law, not when they had no responsibility and therefore no authority on how Saddam treat his people.

I am sorry but I do find the fact that US or UK can break any international law to be oxymoron when they have veto powers on UN. UN is the premier body for establishing international law and US and UK has veto power over whether to declare someone breaking international law. We all know what that is.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 08,, 04:57
All 5 P5 members have used the veto. Therefore, it takes someone extremely stupid to PO all 5 members not to use their veto.

zraver
15 Jun 08,, 06:26
I remain unconvinced that the US and the UK had broken any international law, not when they had no responsibility and therefore no authority on how Saddam treat his people.

Since they imposed the sanctions, and kept them going even when they knew they had failed and only acted to inflict harm on the Iraqi people.

I will use an example- lets say I am an absolute scoundrel and you'v ehad to get a restraining order against me. But I continue to ignore it, you cannot then go after my children. Thats what the sanctions did, they went after normal Iraqis who by law cannot be held accountable for Saddam's actions. The Iraqi's were not Germans in post Hilterite Germany, many had rebelled on numerous occasions. they tried to free themselves of him and failed in large part because of us.

From prevent genocide.org

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.

Key Terms

The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
(zraver- Albright's confession of complicity)

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

Sir, from the article I asked you to read, a profesional law opinion.


The Belgian international law expert Marc Bossuyt is unambiguously clear on this. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights (Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights -E/CN.4/SUB.2/2000/33) of 21 June 2000 he says (Paragraph 72):

"The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It does not matter that this deliberate physical destruction has as its ostensible objective the security of the region. Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect * the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions. The sanctioning bodies cannot be absolved from having the 'intent to destroy' the Iraqi people. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations in fact admitted this; when questioned whether the half million deaths were 'worth it', she replied: 'we think the price is worth it'. The states imposing the sanctions could raise questions under the genocide Convention."

His credentials- Marc Bossuyt (b. Ghent, 9 January 1944) obtained a PhD in law at the University of Ghent in 1968, and a Certificate of international relations at Johns Hopkins University Bologna in 1969. He is a judge in the Constitutional Court of Belgium, professor of international law at the University of Antwerp, and member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Since October 9, 2007 Bossuyt is the President of the Dutch linguistic group of the Constitutional Court of Belgium.

He was appointed to the Constitutional Court by Royal Order on 28 January 1997.

Fatih1989
15 Jun 08,, 10:12
i think a war with Iran would not be a very good idea even if they have options, i think for USA that Iraq and Afghanistan where actually a very cheap war to fight but like wise to a war with Iran can seriously put USA in the Category of Zimbabwe.

Parihaka
15 Jun 08,, 11:44
Really? You seriously want to come on this forum and say America is going to turn out like Zimbabwe?

S2
15 Jun 08,, 11:53
"i think for USA that Iraq and Afghanistan where actually a very cheap war to fight but like wise to a war with Iran can seriously put USA in the Category of Zimbabwe."

I've never read a sentence with which I so agree and disagree. Wow!:confused:

snc128
15 Jun 08,, 12:59
the time of the war is very important!
a war in near futute with Iran can seriously damage America's economy and reliability amongst muslims (this is not because of Iran's influence over the muslims but the wars currently being held on muslims' soil.).

since America's power is directly proportional with the economy, the consequences of a war would not be good for Washington(because of the natural resources' scarcity in terms of petrolleum products and so on. ).

furthermore, America's foreign policy would suffer from the bad fame that can be result from a series of wars throughout 40 years. and the most important consequence would be the China's and Russia's response!

definetely, US would not turn out Zimbabwe or any other less powerful country but he would definetely lose the current status in the world politics. but almost all of the consequences of a possible war would not result from because Iran is very powerful but because of the back stage actors!

Fatih1989
15 Jun 08,, 13:17
Parihaka

i did not say turn ,i said Category

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 08,, 14:18
Since they imposed the sanctions, and kept them going even when they knew they had failed and only acted to inflict harm on the Iraqi people.Z,

I hope you know that all these justifications were used in the only one acknowledged enforcement against genocide - invasion.

zraver
15 Jun 08,, 21:12
Z,

I hope you know that all these justifications were used in the only one acknowledged enforcement against genocide - invasion.


The US/UK invasion does not remove them from thier complicity in what happened before the invasion. And at least so far as the US is concerned-our legal occupation as brief as it was did not follow the LOAC either. We did not provide order, security, or basic services as required, we executed without trial, often on nothing more than suspicion. We even celebrated some of the events.

YouTube - IRAQ FARMERS (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5e6YVMJvRyM)

No visible arms, a farm tractor, a farm type truck, furrowed feilds- common sense says they are farmers. Then we make it worse, a wounded man is seen writhing on the ground- obviously he was out of the fight.

Article III 3rd Geneva Convention

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. (not shot by Apache helicopter)

Whats saddest, is that video is not some enlisted marine with nothing more than a high school diploma. It is at least a warrent officer if not a commissioned officer ordering a war crime he must know is a crime by his very military and other professional education.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jun 08,, 23:28
The US/UK invasion does not remove them from thier complicity in what happened before the invasion.Again, there is no legal precedence of permitting a half rule no matter how much you hate the ruler. Saddam was Iraq. That was the legal reality. To do anything else required his permission unless we remove him.

zraver
16 Jun 08,, 01:27
Again, there is no legal precedence of permitting a half rule no matter how much you hate the ruler. Saddam was Iraq. That was the legal reality. To do anything else required his permission unless we remove him.

Sir, Saddam's crimes do not excuse the crimes of the US/UK. We do not permit the police to break the law to enforce it. When it became evident that the sanctions as used were not working it was up to the UNSC to adopt a different policy that would work and not penalize the Iraqi people for the actions of a leader they did not choose.

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 08,, 02:39
Sir, Saddam's crimes do not excuse the crimes of the US/UK. We do not permit the police to break the law to enforce it. When it became evident that the sanctions as used were not working it was up to the UNSC to adopt a different policy that would work and not penalize the Iraqi people for the actions of a leader they did not choose.But that's the point. In order to do what you want, we have to break another law - the law of sovereignty. Like it or not, Saddam was Iraq. There was no way around this issue. If sanctions was not working, it was because Saddam worked around it. Lifting those sanctions by whatever means mean freeing Saddam (and therefore Iraq) to do more against our interests.

We have committed no crimes. The Iraqi population remained the responsibility of Saddam. There is no way around this issue. There is no such thing as a half rule. Saddam cannot be a half ruler.

Your analogy of bad parents is absolutely correct. The state removed the kids from bad parents' care. In short, the state replaced the bad parents. We replaced Saddam.

If we are guilty of a crime, then the only thing we are guilty of is not removing Saddam sooner. Not that we have not lifted sanctions.

zraver
16 Jun 08,, 06:40
But that's the point. In order to do what you want, we have to break another law - the law of sovereignty. Like it or not, Saddam was Iraq. There was no way around this issue. If sanctions was not working, it was because Saddam worked around it. Lifting those sanctions by whatever means mean freeing Saddam (and therefore Iraq) to do more against our interests.

To points, in the UN Charter, people have the right to freely choose thier government. We know Saddam did not allow this, thus legally he could be denied the rights as Sovereign. Secondly- the UN already had claimed supremacy and thus sovereignty over any weilded by Saddam when it seized control of Iraq's oil and made Iraq subject to its will.


We have committed no crimes. The Iraqi population remained the responsibility of Saddam. There is no way around this issue. There is no such thing as a half rule. Saddam cannot be a half ruler.

We put the blockade in place,we knew the effects it was having, an we refused to modify it to place the pain where it belonged on Saddam, not on the Iraqi people. Those are actions taken by the west, not Saddam.


Your analogy of bad parents is absolutely correct. The state removed the kids from bad parents' care. In short, the state replaced the bad parents. We replaced Saddam.

Only after most of the kids died, and only after we knowingly let him rape and murder his country and prevented his ouster in a public uprising in 1991.


If we are guilty of a crime, then the only thing we are guilty of is not removing Saddam sooner. Not that we have not lifted sanctions.

We are effectively guilty of genocide. We put the sanctions in place. Then when we knew the sanctions had failed we refused to modify them with the full knowledge of what they had been doing and would continue to the Iraqi people. I have already posted what an International law expert thinks. Here is another quote

was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"

Officer of Engineers
16 Jun 08,, 07:12
To points, in the UN Charter, people have the right to freely choose thier government. We know Saddam did not allow this, thus legally he could be denied the rights as Sovereign. Secondly- the UN already had claimed supremacy and thus sovereignty over any weilded by Saddam when it seized control of Iraq's oil and made Iraq subject to its will.There are no definitions as to what constitute a free choice. Civil War is a legitimate right to choose in this case. No, we have not claimed supremacy nor sovereignty over Saddam. He still drilled and sold oil - just he cannot do it outside of Iraq which he had no sovereignty claims whatsoever. And again, Saddam signed those terms of surrender.


We put the blockade in place,we knew the effects it was having, an we refused to modify it to place the pain where it belonged on Saddam, not on the Iraqi people. Those are actions taken by the west, not Saddam.

Only after most of the kids died, and only after we knowingly let him rape and murder his country and prevented his ouster in a public uprising in 1991.And again, there are no legal definitions that would separate Iraq from Saddam. Unlike Family Law, there are no legal boundaries that would require a foreign nation to act on behalf of a local populace.


We are effectively guilty of genocide. We put the sanctions in place. Then when we knew the sanctions had failed we refused to modify them with the full knowledge of what they had been doing and would continue to the Iraqi people. I have already posted what an International law expert thinks. Here is another quote

was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"That we are effectively guilty does not make us legally guilty.

zraver
16 Jun 08,, 07:35
That we are effectively guilty does not make us legally guilty.

We can disagree about that point, but thank you. For the rest of the world where the US/NATO might end up in conflict. The only judge is the perception of our actions. They have seen us act in a way that would get a third world tin pot hanged. They know we will not respect the laws, so why should they? If they end up in a war with us, they have already lost everything anyway, so why not go all the way?

Dreadnought
16 Jun 08,, 17:34
I just assume agree to disagree.

American Empire
27 Jun 08,, 07:30
Here are my thoughts on this subject...

Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and Afghanistan put together. They have alot more people as well and what is more - their military is much more effective than the two above...

Their population: 71,208,000 this is more than Afghanistan and Iraq together. Iran is a very interesting country it is far from a 3rd world dump covered by a endless range of desert and/or mountains. As has been pointed out before there is also a great distance between any assaulting force from the sea. Iran has many different types of terrain and climates to it unlike most Middle Eastern countries. Iran has many different types of environments and climates based on region. This isn’t a single environment/climate conflict like most throughout our history. This will be one of few wars we have been involved in that have multiple climates and environments and we should plan according to each and everyone of them.

Iran is probably going to be a tough shell to crack. They have a fanatical para-military group called the Pasdaran (it means "Guards" in Persian) or IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) these are the same freaks that gather around the US embassy more than 2 decades ago when it was taken by those university students, they number something like 125,000 of active duty troops and control the Iranian the Quds Force (which help build and fight alongside various islamic movements) not to mention the Basji. they launched human wave attacks against Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war. they there fanatical beliefs are their greatest strength and this unconditional devotion is what makes them so dangerous, expect fighting to the last man to be a common thing. They themselves are a self contained force with its own armor, artillery, aircraft, and even a few naval forces. Their regular army has over 350,000 men. We would face a number of insurgents much larger than that of Iraq. For this invasion we would need something like 600,000 troops or maybe even 700,000. We could not gain this number without a draft. Manpower is the only real shortcoming of the United States Military these days, if we get rid of that it would be perfect. The shortest route to launch a invasion into Iran in a effort to capture Tehran is the town of Abadan, or Khorramshahr near the Iraqi border both of which were the scene of heavy fighting during the Iraq/Iran War . That road is over 650 km to Tehran. You also have to pass through Ahvaz (3.7 million regional pop), Khorram abad (1.5 million regional pop), Arak (1.2 million regional pop), and Qom (850,000 regional pop) to reach Tehran. In this area alone we have a massive population to deal with we could end up facing 100,000 insurgents in this area alone. The Iranian soldiers on the other hand are better equiped and (probably) much better trained than their Iraqi counterparts they look like they could put a hurtin' on our boys and girls. They have the terrian advantage and could have some nasty ambushes among other things for any invasion force. and and last but not least Basji militia is said to have more than 11,000,000 troops under its command (!!!!!!) although they are poorly trained their numbers alone could make them a major problem... I would not be so quick to look them over because of their lack of training and modern equipment. Remember Saddam's Fedayeen? Coalition commanders did not take them seriously and they fought harder than the Iraqi Army or even the Republican guard and in most cases stood their ground when the other two gave up and surrendered. Even without weapons they could be a problem because of its shear size. We could find soldiers and marines running out of ammo because of the size of enemy force (having more men than you do bullets in other words). This is what happened to the Iraqis when they invaded Iran. Our guys could overcome this by running over the enemy with their vehicles. Iranian troops unlike the Iraqis use a German rifle - the G3 rather than the AK-47 and their MBT's look fairly modern. The G3 fires the 7.62mm NATO round and is pretty accurate, depending on the marksmanship levels of the Iranian soldiers that are using them they could be a complete joke or a worthy enemy. The Iranians probably would not be getting much artillery support due to fact it would be for the most part destroyed by air attacks. To get a good look at what fighting them will be like it is best to look at the tactics and methods deployed by Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon conflict. As that war showed us Hezbollah is much more effective as a military institution than any of us could thought. These are not the same clueless conscripts that were randomly thrown together to form divisions in the Iraqi Army... No these are professional soldiers who know what they are doing. They are well armed with most weapons of German or of course Soviet origin along with a few Iranian and even US made weaponry.

Another interesting problem that no one has mentioned is what could be called Iran's "Shadow Army" - their Law Enforcement personal. Much like the United States every area has a police department in one form or another. Although not equiped or trained to engage in full blown warfare. It is not uncommon to see Iranian police carrying assault rifles. They could be absorbed by the military or just dig in and fight on their own. They will most likely stay in the area they have jurisdiction meaning that they will know their area of operations well. They may be able to act as guides for the Iranian soldiers placed in their area providing intel on the area and what should be done to defend it. All Law Enforcement organizations of Iran are under the command Ministry of Interior and justice and number a total of 40,000 personal (this includes ALL Iranian LE personal both national and regional). The Iranian police are often called to enforce the states islamic laws so we can expect a fair amount of resistance from them. Frankly I wouldn't worry TOO much about these guys. Like I said they are not equiped or trained to deal with a invasion force. However they could aid the military of Iran in planning the defense of various areas and acting as guides and advisors. This is the real danger to a NATO force. The very second the invasion begins they will probably do what Iraq did and kill all their political prisoners and release everyone else. And the police also have a elite unit known as "Police-110" which acts in the same way as our FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team).

I would expect somewhere between 5,000 to 30,000 KIA and 10,000 to 60,000 WIA during the invasion. I sum it up with the fact that we will win but the Iranians are 100x tougher than the Iraqis in 1991. The Iranians have access to a lot of western small arms such as the G3 and MP5. This is gonna be a new one for our guys who are used to fighting enemies shooting weapons from the old USSR at them. These weapons as most are aware make a much different sound than their Soviet counterparts we could see some "friendly-fire". I am not saying the Iranians don't have a shitload of soviet gear (they without doubt do) but we can't look over the fact that these guys also have western small arms and this could be confusing. They also have the fast firing MG3 which is basically a MG42 that fires a 7.62 NATO round, this thing spits out 1200 rounds a minute. It could prove to be a nasty surprise (ask WWII vets about MG42s.... they will tell you!) for our boys and girls on the ground. The armored vehicles of Iran are another problem… The Zulfiqar (tank) is a new design that no one knows much about. But we should assume it measures up to the standards of the NATO tanks (M1A2 Abrams/Challenger 2/Merkava 4). It wouldn’t surprise me if it did seeing as how Iranians have access to German designs so I wouldn’t be shocked if it had capabilities similar to the Leopard 2. The rest of the designs are obsolete models like the Soviet T-72, T-62 and T-55/T-54 along with the Patton series… All of which have proven to not be up to the task of dealing with the third generation MBTs a NATO force will be fielding. However even these hopelessly outclassed designs could prove deadly if used correctly. If these MBTs were deployed into the cities and hidden in caves in the more mountainous regions of the country they could inflict a serious amount of KIAs and WIAs on a invading force. Provided of course they are not stupid enough to send them out into open flat country like Saddam was, in which case the A-10s and apache helicopters will have a field day. The mountains of Iran are another issue, the Iranians probably have a number of underground tunnel systems within the mountains much like in Tora Bora.

In the air they have a number of F-4s and a few F-14s and of course a couple MIGs. Now the F-14 is a still a reasonably good aircraft it would most certainly do a number on ground forces if it somehow go past the air cover the MIG-29 is also another nasty one but nothing we can’t deal with and the F-4 is hopelessly outdated and doesn’t stand a chance against the F-18s and F-22s to the USN and USAF are gonna be flying. The F-16s of the USAF and IAF (provided Israel decides to join us) should also be able to hold their own the superior training of the pilots of both Air Forces over the Iranian ones should be enough to take them out however the F-14 carries Air to Air missiles that can destroy the F-16 from well beyond the F-16s range as such we must take great care not to take the Iranian air power too lightly. The Eurofighter Typhoon of our European friends should also be able to hold its own against Iranian air craft. Regardless the Iranians unlike the Iraqis have a AF that could hurt us. Fighter escort would be need to protect the B-52s and AC-130s from incoming bandits. The Wild Weasel flyboys would be taking out a lot of SAMs. Delta Force and the SAS would also be sent in to call in air strikes and in some cases take out the SAMs with AT or C4. And if all else fails (which is about as likely as getting hit by lightning) that is when the B-2 Spirit comes into play, this stealth heavy bomber was designed to slip in and out of the most dense AA defenses and drop a heavy load of bombs onto their targets. Unlike the B-1 Lancer or B-52 the B-2 would probably require little or no fighter escort (in fact it would probably be better off without it) because of its onboard stealth devices. The Iranians also will deploy a large number of F-4s and F-5, although these aircraft are outdated by modern NATO standards they may still have a little bit of fight in them. They are armed with Air to Air missiles that are in use on current NATO aircraft. The F-4/F-5 is used in the same way in the IAF (Iranian Air Force) as F-16s are in the USAF. Aircraft for the run of the mill fighter pilot, the more skilled and experienced pilots will probably be flying the MiG-29s and F-14s with the rest piloting F-4s and F-5s. The F-4/F-5 these days largely serve as the poor mans F-16. They are obsolete in the world of first rate militaries like the US/UK/Israel etc and I don’t think they should give us much trouble. However we should as always be prepared for any nasty surprises they give us. The MiG-29 needs to be taken seriously and the F-14 even more so. However save for a few advanced fighters like the MiG-29 and F-14 I am not under the impression that there is that much to fear. They will probably try to avoid dogfights as much as possible so that their for the most part obsolete and/or badly mentained aircraft don’t end up getting mauled. Attacking ground units and naval vessels out in the gulf is probably what they will try. We could lose a number of aircraft but it probably won’t be enough to mess with our operations that much. The best route to go would be to go about this would be to launch a massive series of air strikes in order to take out as much of the Iranian AF on the ground before it can take off and bomb the runways so they can’t fly aircraft off of them. Basically repeating what the IDF did in the Six Day War.

As has been pointed out Tehran has 11 million people living there. This is nearly two times greater than Baghdad! And the distance is also much greater from the sea than from than from Kuwait to Baghdad. However this is a far cry from what happened to the German 6th Army at Stalingrad like people keep talking about. There are is nothing that could break apart the flow of supplies across Iran completely like the Soviets did at Stalingrad. We can always use helicopters and cargo planes to bring in fresh supplies in the event it got this bad. The fanatics will go up into the mountains of western Iran and hide there and will have to be flushed out using spec ops and other specialized units. Iran's cities have tall buildings which could be used to as sniper posts for any insurgent or soldier and could do some damage to our guys below. I would count on battles for various cities to be about as bloody as Fallujah and the big one - Tehran could be quite a blood bath which could have anywhere from 500 to 1,000 killed and wounded. Again if the Iranians deployed MBTs and IFVs into the cities they could prove very dangerous weapons against our troops taking the city. Some Iranian cities have many high rise buildings unlike Iraq. These buildings could be used by snipers, machine gunners and AT (Anti Tank) crews to get the drop on our troops. It would probably be best to take these buildings out. However we should really be careful when we bomb the cities. We could end up making the same mistake the Germans made at Stalingrad and make the city more easy to defend by creating piles of rubble for the enemy to conceal and take cover at not to mention make advances forward by our guys and girls more difficult. Clearing out these buildings could prove to be long and bloody. Going into the various cities and towns of Iraq will probably be a very bloody affair indeed. We would probably be best served to move like lighting into the cities and capture or destroy arms cashes before any future insurgents can get to them. Going into the cities with MBTs and IFVs along with infantry to support them along with helicopter gunships flying overhead is probably the best way to go, as I said before artillery and air strikes should be used but NOT overused. If level who cities and create ruins we will have left the Iranians with more cover and concealment than before and make maps of the town less accurate due to the destruction, not to mention the ruble would block the paths of advancing vehicles. Bombing the cities into oblivion would create road blocks and further piles which could be turned into improvised fortifications within a matter of minutes. The Iranians could try flooding the cities with sewage and water thus creating mud and we could end up finding whole armored columns getting stuck in the mud. It has happened in Iraq and may happen again if the Iranians have learned anything from watching the actions of the US in Iraq. We made the mistake in Iraq of leaving massive amounts of weapons and ammo unattended. These weapons ended up in the hands of insurgents which led to great problems for our troops later on. I say we take the time to capture or destroy these armories so they don’t come back to haunt us.

On the fastest way to Tehran we could find ourselves fighting between 100,000 to 150,000 insurgents, although they are the same type of insurgents we have been fighting in Iraq this is far more in this single area than we have been facing in ALL of Iraq put together. It is best make sure they don’t get a hold of these weapons and cause problems. That is the last thing we need is hundreds of thousands of insurgents attacking our supply convoys. We could use Airborne and Air Assault units from the 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions to provide mobile reaction force to any sudden and massive attacks launched behind the front lines. Airborne/Air Assault troops are good for this kinda warfare. The US/British/Israeli fighting man is a highly skilled and enduring war fighter, however even the best of our nations forces can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and fire power. We must be prepared to respond quickly and decisively to any large scale assault that occurs behind our lines Airborne/Air Assault troops, attack helicopters, A-10s, artillery and cruise missiles ready and if things get really bad…. AC-130s for some heavy duty fire support. If we ain’t ready to launch a swift and decisive response to any mass attack… our boys driving the supply convoys will probably get overrun in a battle where the enemy had more men than they did bullets…we could find ourselves getting a few “broken arrow” calls before the invasion is over and doing some CSAR after the invasion. It would probably be wise to deploy the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System. This new design weighs only 19 tons so it can travel with the convoy. Their 105mm main guns will give them a nice amount of firepower against a swarm of incoming Basij. The MGS (Mobile Gun System) is a whole new weapon and concept. Although I seriously doubt it will be replacing the MBTs I believe we will see a lot of them in the future. However with this new weapon we can bring in much mobile firepower to the table without all the excess tonnage of a MBT. They would be able to bring the firepower of a early M1 Abrams to the table without the heavy weight. The disadvantage to these MGS is they are not fitted with a MG. This can cause problems as the German Wehrmacht found at Kursk. Without a MG they are wide open to attacks from enemy infantry once they close in from things like satchel charges and a grenade down the 105mm gun. Stryker should put MGs on the MGS I guess they were hoping that the vehicle who get its MG support from the .50 cal M2s which are mounted on top of the humvees to provide the covering fire that is supposed to keep the enemy infantry off the M1128.


The Iranians also have a Navy. Although it is not nearly as powerful as the USN by a long shot they could do some damage. We might very well lose a frigate or possibly a destroyer or two. But the 5th Fleet with remain largely undamaged and be able to complete support the land forces with its massive firepower. Many people keep talking about Iran being able to send one of the USNs Nimitz-class supercarriers (104,000 tons) to the bottom of the sea, pure BS IMO. There is no way all those little missile boats they have are gonna get through the massive amount of ships and aircraft that are going be pouring munitions their way the Mark 45 5 inch guns of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers none of these fast attack boats will be able to withstand so much as a single hit from these 127mm artillery pieces. Those submarines they have are pretty old and outdated they make a lot of noise so it probably won't be long before they are spotted and dealt with, if they get lucky they may end up sinking a frigate or destroyer. The Iranians would also be able to plan there attack with UAVs (the Iranians have spied on us in the past without being detected. Although it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY a Iranian aircraft could get through the AA defense systems and kamikaze into a supercarrier, if a jet managed to crash into the ordnance storage deck…. The explosion and resulting fire would be massive, the aircraft with munitions and fuel in them would also be a another bad place to get hit but in any case USN damage control proved its skill in the second world war but I don’t think even a supercarrier could survive something like that, the supercarrier may end up like the USS Franklin and be saved by damage control but it would still be put outta action for a while plus you would have a lot of dead Navy and Marine Corps personal. But as I said this is very unlikely that Iran would be able to get through the screen of fighters and AA fire. We will probably need the fire support of our mighty Iowa-class battleships and their impressive 16 inch guns we don’t have time to build new BBs so we will have to reactivate the Iowas for one last hurrah. Those 16 inch main batteries will come in plenty useful for a shore bombardment of enemy coastal defenses I am sure the soldiers and marines will truly like having those big 16 inchers firing salvos to cover them, it would probably give the Iranians another target besides the supercarriers. The SS-N-22 Sunburn missile sights will have to be dealt with to insure the security of our naval forces. Send Navy SEALs and USMC Force Recon to take out the enemy sunburn missile sights before they do any damage. The sunburn missiles are the best chance the Iranians have at sinking a US ship. The Iranians will probably take a few cracks at the 5th Fleet in a attempt to sink a supercarrier or at least AAS (Amphibious assault ship) both of which have very heavy armor so they will probably try sinking smaller vessels like the frigates, destroyers and cruisers. However if they insist on going after capital ships they could try the smallest of the lot – the amphibious assault ships (40,000 tons) or the even smaller Invincible-class (20,700 ton) light aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy. But like I said before it is very unlikely that the IAF will be able to get through the massive amount of AA fire and carrier-based fighters before they could do any damage. They could however make attack runs on landing craft and troops on the beach. Won’t take much to destroy those and they don’t have much to defend themselves with. They will be sitting ducks in th ocean and on the beach. Which is why they will need a lot of air cover.


The Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas should be high on the lists of targets as it the center of all Iranian naval operations. With a population of 352,173 it is pretty much the nerve center of the Iranian Navy take it out and the Iranian forces on the seas are all but out of the picture. Navy SEALs, SBS and other maritime SOF groups will probably be deployed into the habors to cause whatever havoc they can. As I said before Iran's naval power is pretty much stationed here all three of its Kilo-class submarines are homeported here. As most of you know Iran has a very small navy (it numbers only 20,000 personal) and it has no capital ships. Its largest warships are five frigates and three corvettes, all of which are armed with modern anti-ship missiles along with the three Kilo-class submarines I mentioned before. Iranian naval doctrine depends mainly on the the many anti-ship missile boats it would employ. In any case the SOF units would probably go to work planting C4 on SAM sites so they don't screw with the carrier-based aircraft. Once all the SAM sites are out of the picture the air strikes sink the ships and destroy shore installations, once all that is said and done you send in the amphibious assault ships close to shore who unload the landing crafts which are full of Marines and then they hit the beach and clear out the habor and prepare to push inland. Bandar Abbas is probably a real good place for a amphibious assault as it is not only Irans most important harbor it also allows us to secure the southern flank of the forces pushing in from both Iraq and Afghanistan and allows us to effectively end any threat the Iranians pose to the Strait of Hormuz. The other Iranians lesser Iranian ports should be bombed but I don't think there is any need to make landings on them because of the fact the most of the other ones are of little tactical or strategic importance.

From Bandar Abbas the “Southern Front” would be opened up. This will probably be the least intense fight (save of course for taking and holding the harbor and the area around it), I wouldn’t expect much trouble down here. The whole reason for securing this area is to see to it the southern flanks of both Field Armies are protected and to cut off the escape route for retreating Iranian forces. It is critical that this is taken care of so nothing goes in or out. Having a few 100 miles of unoccupied territory is not a good thing, it would give the enemy a great place to regroup and counter attack. Down here there are few cities and the population is not at all dense and the military presence in this region appears to be very light (the majority of military installations being in the northwest). So I would expect only a small amount of resistance in this area although it does have some large population centers (Shiraz coming to mind) It doesn’t have that many military person nor is the population at all dense and as such I would expect little fighting going on. They would probably be a few spots that get a litle rough but other than that I wouldn’t worry to much..


As for the war going on in eastern Iran… a force of between 150,000 to 200,000 troops would be needed to be built up in Afghanistan and then launched from there. It would be less intense than the conflict in the west but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t get nasty. This part of the country is less populated and more rural than the western part. The amount of roads and cities located here is smaller and the area is the “long way” to Iraq, however this area is also much bigger and would be a greater strain on manpower. As the regions here are more rural urban combat here would be minimal and would be replaced by mountain and flat surface warfare. Passing through the Dasht-e Kavir (Great Salt Desert) when we came to it would be best way to go. As the Iranians would probably not be able to put any kind of sizable force to effective us because the combined firepower of artillery and air power would totally destroy any sizable formation the Iranians deployed to stop the advance. The war here would probably not get as bad as in the west but certainly would be nastier than all of Iraq combined. The Iranians probably would have a limited a amount of troops to defend this sector which is probably why they would desolve into the country side and launch ambushes and would probably dig into old historic forts that are located their. The fighting there would probably go up in down in terms of intensity unlike the conflict in the west which would probably remain heavy all the time.


Again the fastest route to Tehran has a few million people in it. This is the most likely route that will have to be taken. It will be short but bloody. Insurgents much like the ones in Iraq will spring up – however they will be way more insurgents in this area alone then there are in all of Iraq. The invading force coming from Iraq into Iran would probably have to consist of around 300,000 to 400,000 troops organized into a single Field Army. The Iraq/Iran border is 292 miles long and it would take a good sized force to cover that much ground. This densely populated area would probably be the scene of the heaviest fighting, city after city and hill after hill. A lot of blood would be shed before Tehran was reached and even then once in Tehran it would make Fallujah look like candyland. The Iranians will probably try holding these areas to allow the military and political leadership to escape to the western part of the country. The advance on the eastern side of Iraq is going to be the back bone of the operation. It would have the most troops and equipment involved on both sides and will without doubt be the bloodiest part of the war. In this front the majority of Iranian military bases are located here so it would probably in the area where most of Iranian military formations are stationed and would be tasked with defending. Traveling through the mountains and hills would be difficult because the Iranians have the terrain advantage over NATO and would love playing “fortress on the hill” with US troops. We could find ourselves in a bunch of little “king of the hill” battles. The cities would be even worse a whole bunch of Fallujahs would be very likely. Every nasty thing I mentioned earlier will most likely happen here. The troops here would probably be on the receiving end of a number of human wave attacks. The full weight of the Basji will probably come running down from the mountains and on open ground.

Iran will without doubt send the full force of Hezbollah on our troops in Iraq as well as against the Israelis. Israel has recently pulled out of the Golan Heights and Syria has a defense treaty with Iran and may attack Israel alongside Hezbollah. And as I have said before, Hezbollah is a fairly effective fighting force and could do some damage. They are not mere clowns who wrap white or red cloth around their faces and go out and do spray and prays on our troops with the marksmanship of a Somali gunmen. They have weapons and know how to use them well and have a large bag of tricks to pull on the coalition. The sea in the British sector could become a bit rough because huge Shi'ite population centers such as Barsa are located there. We would probably face some rebellions from the Shia members of the New Iraqi Army and they could screw things up should Iraqi troops be included in any type of offensive operation against Iran. I don't think we would have any kind of problems from Afghan troops or people seeing as how most of them are Sunni anyway. The Quds Force is without doubt aiding both anti-coalition insurgent groups in southern Iraq and Hezbollah, with both the Quds Force and Iranian funding out of the picture we might see some real lighting up of the anti-western activity going on from the Shi’ites it is hard to fight a war when you don’t have the funds (not to mention the support from a spec ops group). With the current crisis in Lebenon, Hezbollah and other groups will probably be much stronger and more battle hardened than ever before. The IDF would probably end up having to send troops into Lebenon as well Syria. Egypt might go wild and break the peace treaty it signed with Israel years ago and due to the US equipment and funding they have been getting (they will of course be frozen once they attack Israel) and will prove much more effective than they did in the 6 Day War or even Yom Kippur War. I think Israel would really be pushing itself to the limit if such a war happened. We might even have to devert some troops to help. I know Israel has fought off multiple muslim states a number of times in the past, they would be really pushing it here.

While the convential forces are fighting away. What about the war the spec ops will be fighting? Well the Delta Force and SAS will probably be sent into deal with SAMs as well as assassination of key military and political leaders. The Israeli Sayeret Matkal would probably perform more or less the same role. The Navy SEALs, SBS along with the S13 would secure oil platforms and raid enemy naval bases and harbors. A-Teams (US Army SF or Green Berets) would probably be deployed to Khūzestān, Kurdistan, and into regions likely to have pro-shah populations to rally bigger forces and fight alongside them in battle. The Iranians would probably hit back by ordering the their Qods Force troops to get Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’ite militias to attack NATO forces in the region and the Iranian regulars will probably launch Takavar (another Iranian SOF unit) behind our lines to conduct raids and spread chaos among our ranks. Last but not least the US Army Rangers would probably be dropped in and used in the traditional “super-infantry” role and would probably be used to provide security while Delta Force goes to work capturing or killing military and political leaders.

Taking a break from the military part of it lets go on to the political aspect. A war with Iran would not go over well with a large number of left-winged people and groups. expect large anti-war rallies in all major cities. A draft would probably create a political nightmare on a massive scale. This is the only reason I could see the US failing is if the wet anti-war pansies get the better of the loyal Americans. I seriously doubt anything in the political landscape of any NATO nation would allow for a invasion of Iran. However if Iran was to start something, there is no doubt the whole western world would be up for finishing the fight decisively and ruthlessly. If Iran should dare use one single WMD against our troops then Iran would quickly join a nuclear club who currently only has one member: Japan. And what of our allies you ask? The UK would be more than likely to follow us, and a number of other powers would join are multi-national task force. And Israel would be more than happy to help us. All we have to do is ask. I also believe Afghan and Iraqi troops would be involved. And I highly doubt China or Russia would stand against us, any idea like this sounds to much like another Tom Clancy novel. And as I have said before if Iran starts anything we will have a massive number of nations backing the US. We need to be careful the Russians and Chinese will not like us interfering with their oil supply if they do step in…. hell will be unleashed… And lets not forget the possibly of revolts in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States because of the joint US/Israeli War. If one or worse yet both scenarios took place – it would be World War III.

I think the best course of action against Iran is for the US to bring back the draft and once we have 600,000 or maybe even 700,000 troops on stand by we invade and bomb the holy **** out of them. In a ideal scenario we would have a Field Army massed on each side of Iran one in Iraq the other in Afghanistan. plus amphibious landing (of a corps sized formation) from the Gulf. The Field Army coming in from Iraq would number around 300,000 to 400,000 personal and the one coming in from Afghanistan would have 150,000 to 200,000 personal where as the landing force from the sea would number something like 100,000 personal. Once the military phase is over and done with we demolish the weapons labs and capture or kill the scientists working on them. Then we withdraw from Iran and don't stay around to rebuild - let the Iranians sort it out... People keep talking about how a insurgency in Iran would be much harder on our forces than the one in Iraq. This is very true it would be many times worse. We could face huge losses, much bigger than Iraq/Afghanistan However something everyone seems to forget is….


WE DON’T NEED TO OCCUPY IRAN IN THE SAME WAY WE DID IN IRAQ.

Iran is a confirmed supporter of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and others. There is no political or moral obligation to rebuild a known supporter of terrorism. Just invade destroy their military and leadership (both military and political) and blow their nuclear testing labs and burn the designs for them and leave behind no visible backbone for them to rebuild themselves, militarily or otherwise. Use the Full-Spectrum Dominance idea to its fullest it is a real breakthrough in military thought and great military doctrine. It is a doctrine that we must bring to full use in any conflict with Iran. This would be a high-intensity war. Iran should be wrecked and not rebuilt. It would not be highly unlikely that we would be able to do anything in a long term occupation of Iran than waste USD and lives, so it is best to forget about the whole thing, it will save us a shitload of grief, once our mission accomplished there is no reason not to pull out and forget about Iran and let the Iranians fight it out in a nice bloody civil war. al-Qaida, Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist organizations will duke it out in a Iranian Civil War that is costly for all involved. See at what I am getting at here? Islamic terrorists killing other Islamic terrorists!! It would save us the hassle of having to hunt down and kill them ourselves!!!! So you see people we are way better off going in getting in some target practice and testing out new weapons and then leaving the country in ruin than trying to rebuild it. We would probably have to get the NIA (New Iraqi Army) and ANA (Afghan National Army) to provide border security to keep nutjobs in Iran from getting out and causing problems.

Also the best way to go about this is to wait for the fight to come to us if at all possible. We gotta make sure they don’t develop nukes. Although many will bash me for allowing Iran the first move in the long run it is for the best. Once Iran makes the first move against a single NATO country the rest of NATO will be bound by treaty to go to war with Iran. Thus we will have a coalition as big if not bigger than the one in Desert Storm. We would need a draft and being attacked first would be the only way we could reinstate it without creating a political **** storm. It will probably be the same a huge rallying cry of patriotic storm and nationalistic fever. It would last until Iran was destroyed and then we would have a massive party and soon we would go back to the way we were before 9/11 and learn nothing from all this – it is sad but it is probably what will happen. I am real sad to say we can’t do **** about that Adolf Hitler wannabe (Mahmūd Ahmadinejād) until he acts.

I think we could pull of a invasion of Iran, However I don't think now is the time... We have spent WAY TOO MUCH money on the conflicts currently going on In the GWOT. Regardless of who the combatants are if for whatever reason we decide to launch the invasion of Iran.... Things could be very... Ouch...

Bella
28 Jun 08,, 03:20
Once again, "Can the U.S. take down the Iran in war?"
Well it depends on what you mean by "take down".
In my "personal" belief, Iran's military can not even come close to the U.S.
Yes, Iran is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, so.....what....."It will take a few days longer to completely destroy their military?"
To occupy the country will be a completely different thing.
Look at the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan..........How many U.S. troops were killed in combat when attacking "Their" military? Not too many! Most of the loses were due in part of road side bombs, and these "COWARD" militants hiding behind women and children just to kill U.S. troops.
You see, the U.S. is trying to do there best by attacking the militants on their own turf, but while trying to minimize collateral damage. The militants don't play by these rules.......!!!
They will kill their "fellow" muslim brothers just to kill "1" U.S. troop!
If the U.S. really wanted to,.......I mean, really wanted to........ they would bomb every living human being until they know that U.S. troop casualties would be to a minimum.
My point is this.........Iran can't go "Toe-to-toe" with the U.S. if it involves military warfare.
Occupying the country is a different story! It's pretty hard to win the harts and minds of another country, when they don't see eye-to-eye with yours.
I believe it is a waste of U.S. human life to do so, "BUT" if Iran did do something very stupid...........Iran would be done for.........

Bella
28 Jun 08,, 03:31
Also!! For Iran's very, very, very, few F-14's and F-4's............shoot!!! The U.S. would bomb them with B-2's even before they took off!!! And if they did!!, they would be no match for the current U.S. fighters..!! I kinda see it like how Iraq tried to hide all their best fighters in the sand, or fly to a friendly country just to save them! The F-14, or the F-4 are both old news in the U.S. They are both retired for a reason! The old Mig-29??? Yeah!

American Empire
28 Jun 08,, 05:43
The Iranians have around 50 operational F-14s and a similar number of MiG-29s. They do however have ALOT of F-4s.

Bella
28 Jun 08,, 06:29
The Iranians have around 50 operational F-14s and a similar number of MiG-29s. They do however have ALOT of F-4s.

O.K.?..... The U.S. has thousands of F-14's and F-4's sitting in mothballs right now!! Just basically sitting in a junkyard. What does that mean?? If those fighters matter so much and are so "Kick *ss", they would still be in operation in the U.S.....However they don't.

The U.S. is building and developing better aircraft right now.
Besides, the U.S. built the F-14 and the F-4 and now what they can do.
For the Mig-29? Shoot..........! Just as old and outdated as the F-14.
A matter of fact, the Mig-29 doesn't have the best record when it comes to being shot down.
I believe 8 were shot down by U.S. F-15's while no U.S. F-15 have ever been shot down. The rest fled to Iran...............
This of coarse was during the Gulf War.........

American Empire
28 Jun 08,, 06:48
I never said the IRIAF has what it takes to down US airpower. I know the US has more advanced fighters and will destroy the IRIAF. But the question is... How much damage can the IRIAF do before going down. I would be careful not to underestimate the Iranians.

Parihaka
28 Jun 08,, 08:01
I never said the IRIAF has what it takes to down US airpower. I know the US has more advanced fighters and will destroy the IRIAF. But the question is... How much damage can the IRIAF do before going down. I would be careful not to underestimate the Iranians.

They will do quite a bit of damage to the environment as they burn on the ground.
Doesn't matter how skilled the pilots, nor how good the platform, if the Iranians don't see the Americans/Israelis coming then the airframes are just target practice.

American Empire
28 Jun 08,, 18:54
They will do quite a bit of damage to the environment as they burn on the ground.
Doesn't matter how skilled the pilots, nor how good the platform, if the Iranians don't see the Americans/Israelis coming then the airframes are just target practice.

The IRIAF will fall make no mistake about it. I am just saying we must be careful not to underestimate them. The Iranians have more advanced fighters than the Iraqis did and better trained pilots. They could do some damage. Ever heard the saying: "hope for the best but prepare for the worst".

Bella
29 Jun 08,, 02:11
The IRIAF will fall make no mistake about it. I am just saying we must be careful not to underestimate them. The Iranians have more advanced fighters than the Iraqis did and better trained pilots. They could do some damage. Ever heard the saying: "hope for the best but prepare for the worst".

"Underestimate them"? The U.S. has never underestimated any enemy when it comes to,"Military to Military warfare".
Underestimate local resistance?......That is not part of this thread.
When the U.S. attacked Iraq in GW-I, the U.S. believed that Saddam Husein would use chemical weapons, and figured that there would be thousands of casualties. Luckily he didn't because we all know that Iraq would not exist anymore!

For Iran having more advanced fighters than Iraq, please elaborate.....
And don't include the F-14 or the F-4 either. The U.S. built them and know what they can do.
In a "Nutshell" take the best Iran aircraft against the best or second, or even third that the U.S. has, and see what they can do.
I've been on the Iran Defence Forum, and that's all they gloat about, is how awesome the F-14 is, and that is will, "Rain Devastation" on them.
PLEASE!!!..........

For your assessments on better trained pilots!.......How and why are they better than Iraq's? Just like Iraq, when was the last time a Iranian fighter pilot was in "Real" air-to-air combat?
It's very hard to make that assumption that Iran has better pilots than Iraq when Iran has never seen a true air war.

Can Iran do damage?.......Who knows!!!......Yes, No, Some, Maybe???
What are you basing your "Damage" assessment on??? What aircraft, against what aircraft?.....
The F-16 against the Mig-29? The F-15 against the Mig-29? The Mig-29 against a rescue helicopter or LongBow?........What?

That's all I'm asking. Tell me how Iran can do some real damage.

Thanks!!:)

American Empire
30 Jun 08,, 07:41
I am not a Iranian fanboy, on the contray I am a very proud American. I am merely saying they may prove more effective than we thought possible. The Iraqis employed MiG-29s in desert storm and all but one was blown out of the sky. But the Iraqis were flying badly mantained MiG-29 and had very poor pilots. The problem is the Iranians are both better trained and their aircraft is better taken care of.

And what do you mean by "Military to Military warfare" is there any other kind of warfare? In any case I will name a few cases where the US underestimated its ememy:

- American Civil War (both sides are guilty of underestimating their enemies at times)
- Fetterman massacre (see Red Cloud's War)
- Battle of Little Bighorn
- Operation Market Garden
- the surprise attack by the Chinese during the Korean War in 1950
- Vietnam War
- Operation Iraqi Freedom
- the return of the Taliban in A-stan

So there are number of cases were the US has underestimated its enemy. Don't think it can't happen cause it can.

My bases for the Iranians being able to do better is

1. they have more advanced (and better mantained) aircraft
2. their pilots are better trained

My bases for the Iranians being better trained should be clear. You can tell just by looking at them (the regulars at least) that they are squared away and ready for a fight. The Iranians have had a long time free of sanactions to build up and modernize. Just because you know what the F-14 can do doesn't mean it isn't a threat. For example I know a single atom bomb can blow up a city, is that alone enough to keep a city from being destroyed? I doubt it...

The F-4s are outmatched by even the weakest of their enemies. But they could still do some damage against the 5th Fleet. I am aware they would have F-18s and SAMs right down their throats but that doesn't mean we can rest easy.

Iran probably wouldn't bother trying to gain air superiority against a enemy that has the F-22 Raptor flying for it (assuming their not completely stupid) and go after US naval assets. What would likely happen is the F-4s would act in a fighter-bomber role and go after the ships where as the F-14s and MiG-29s would fly cover and try to keep the F-18s off their backs - at least that is how I would do it if I were them.

They could sink a number of ships look at the Falkland war. Although the British had better aircraft and pilots they still lose two destroyers and two frigates. The Iranians may take out a few ships but they will not take down the 5th Fleet.

I could see a small number of frigates and destroyers being sunk or badly damaged but it will not be anywhere enough to stop the 5th Fleet.

Gun Grape
01 Jul 08,, 02:33
The problem is the Iranians are both better trained and their aircraft is better taken care of.

A
My bases for the Iranians being able to do better is

1. they have more advanced (and better mantained) aircraft
2. their pilots are better trained

My bases for the Iranians being better trained should be clear. You can tell just by looking at them (the regulars at least) that they are squared away and ready for a fight. The Iranians have had a long time free of sanactions to build up and modernize. Just because you know what the F-14 can do doesn't mean it isn't a threat. For example I know a single atom bomb can blow up a city, is that alone enough to keep a city from being destroyed? I doubt it...

The F-4s are outmatched by even the weakest of their enemies. But they could still do some damage against the 5th Fleet. I am aware they would have F-18s and SAMs right down their throats but that doesn't mean we can rest easy.

Iran probably wouldn't bother trying to gain air superiority against a enemy that has the F-22 Raptor flying for it (assuming their not completely stupid) and go after US naval assets. What would likely happen is the F-4s would act in a fighter-bomber role and go after the ships where as the F-14s and MiG-29s would fly cover and try to keep the F-18s off their backs - at least that is how I would do it if I were them.

Read a lot of Clancy. Don't you:)


They could sink a number of ships look at the Falkland war. Although the British had better aircraft and pilots they still lose two destroyers and two frigates. The Iranians may take out a few ships but they will not take down the 5th Fleet.


So the question is young man. What caused them to lose those ships?
Was it poor weapon systems on the RNs side? Improper placement of systems? Poor training of RN sailors? Were the Argies that much better?

Before you make statements like the above, I suggest you read a few books on the subject. The Falklands would be nothing like the PG.

Blue
01 Jul 08,, 03:32
Given the latest scuttlebutt, I don't think we are heading for a conventional conflict with Iran. So yep! Big glass parking lot!

zraver
01 Jul 08,, 04:06
The F-4s are outmatched by even the weakest of their enemies. But they could still do some damage against the 5th Fleet. I am aware they would have F-18s and SAMs right down their throats but that doesn't mean we can rest easy.

Iran probably wouldn't bother trying to gain air superiority against a enemy that has the F-22 Raptor flying for it (assuming their not completely stupid) and go after US naval assets. What would likely happen is the F-4s would act in a fighter-bomber role and go after the ships where as the F-14s and MiG-29s would fly cover and try to keep the F-18s off their backs - at least that is how I would do it if I were them.

If anything, and if Iran gets them off the ground the F-4's and F-14's will be the primary fighter cover for the SU-24 and SU-25's. The Mig-29's and F-5 family will be flying close escort and or sam bait to make a hole for the bombers with thier ownd eaths as that is all they are fit for. Many of Iran's Mig-29's are former Iraqi craft and all are first generation platforms with the underperforming topaz radar that has less range than Iran's 60's era F-4's.

American Empire
01 Jul 08,, 04:26
Read a lot of Clancy. Don't you:)

I haven't read a single on of his books.




So the question is young man. What caused them to lose those ships?
Was it poor weapon systems on the RNs side? Improper placement of systems? Poor training of RN sailors? Were the Argies that much better?

Before you make statements like the above, I suggest you read a few books on the subject. The Falklands would be nothing like the PG.

The HMS Sheffield was caught off guard and sunk when fighter-bombers got the better of it, the HMS Antelope was taken out when A-4s caught it as it was unloading supplies. Another ship (who's name escapes me) was lost when the HMS Invincible deployed chaff to provent a AM-39 Exocet from hitting it the Exocet veared off course and locked on to another ship - sinking it.

My conclusion is that it was a mix of the Argies knowing when and where to strike as well as just plain bad luck.

I am simply stating that the US could lose a few ships, I am by NO MEANS saying that they could destroy the entire 5th Fleet. It is a wise course of action to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

American Empire
01 Jul 08,, 05:18
If anything, and if Iran gets them off the ground the F-4's and F-14's will be the primary fighter cover for the SU-24 and SU-25's. The Mig-29's and F-5 family will be flying close escort and or sam bait to make a hole for the bombers with thier ownd eaths as that is all they are fit for. Many of Iran's Mig-29's are former Iraqi craft and all are first generation platforms with the underperforming topaz radar that has less range than Iran's 60's era F-4's.

The IRIAF could use its F-4s against US aircraft. But they are 3rd generation fighters that cannot hang with current US designs. However you will probably argue that their simply aren't enough MiG-29s and F-14s to go around which is probably correct. So they may divide the F-4s between the roles of escort and fighter-bomber. The F-5s and SU-24/25s would all be used in their attack aircraft role against US ships.

Walking Dead
01 Jul 08,, 18:34
The problem is the Iranians are both better trained and their aircraft is better taken care of.

And what do you mean by "Military to Military warfare" is there any other kind of warfare? In any case I will name a few cases where the US underestimated its ememy:



So there are number of cases were the US has underestimated its enemy. Don't think it can't happen cause it can.

My bases for the Iranians being able to do better is

1. they have more advanced (and better mantained) aircraft
2. their pilots are better trained

My bases for the Iranians being better trained should be clear. You can tell just by looking at them (the regulars at least) that they are squared away and ready for a fight.






You are smoking some bad s#%t my friend. The sheer ignorance of these statements pretty much discredits anything you will say in the future.

gunnut
01 Jul 08,, 19:50
The Iranians have around 50 operational F-14s and a similar number of MiG-29s. They do however have ALOT of F-4s.

I thought Iran has no more than 3 operational F-14s. Flyable and operational are not exactly the same.

Bella
01 Jul 08,, 21:17
Alright American Empire,

Here is a hypothetical...........Iran and the U.S. goes to war, in doing so, a fleet of 10 B-2 Spirits evade Iran air defenses, then destroying airfields that house F-14's, F-4's, Mig-29's,......whatever!! How can they do damage.
With this scenario, lets just say that 3 F-14's, 10 F-4's, and 8 Mig-29's are already flying, and are not destroyed.
The U.S. would have a huge fleet of F-18's, F-16's, F-22's, F-15's, maybe the F-35, and that's not including the inventory from ally nations.
If Iran had, oh lets just say 5,000 fighters, then yeah!!, I'm sure there would be some great dog-fights!..........But they don't.....
The only thing Iran has, is outdated American and Russian aircraft.

Also, I really like your quotes on old wars about underestimation!!
Civil Wars, Indian Wars, Vietnam Wars.............Wow, No WWI or WWII?? Those Wars truly show what happens when the U.S., the U.K., and other friends throw everything they have at an enemy..
The Vietnam War, that was nothing more than a political war in which we pulled out because the U.S. population didn't believe in it..........but since you are a American, you should know about that!
That is why all Americans are always support our troops now!!! We have learned from our mistakes in the past.
I have several family members that have served in Vietnam and the always ed told me how when they came home, regular called them "Baby Killers", ect...!!!
Look now!!!...........We respect them, and honor them in monuments and holidays!!!
Since you are a American, you should know that!!!........
But!!! Lets look at the stats........millions killed in Vietnam, while a little over 50,000 killed in the U.S.. What do you consider a Win??
Stop bringing up the past, it is 2008 not 1960, or 1900, or 1850, or whatever!!!
If you are going off the past, we might as well include the 1600's and before!

By the way.............why didn't you include WWII, or WWI?? Is it because they won??

Thanks!!!

zraver
02 Jul 08,, 01:18
I thought Iran has no more than 3 operational F-14s. Flyable and operational are not exactly the same.

13 overflew Tehran earlier. Iran claims it can make 90% of the Tomcat, to have digitzed its radar etc. They also have a really good smugglign operation going. To the point where mothballed and muesum Tomcats are beign destroyed and ther are no flying private examples. Take it for what its worth, but at lest 13 are flying.

Bella, no offense but your on drugs. Any first strike by the US using B-2's will never be more than 4 craft already forward deployed as part of routine deployments to Guam or Deigo Garcia. the US surges 10 B-2's from Missouri and all hell is goin to break loose as foriegn agents count planes.

Triple C
02 Jul 08,, 07:40
Sorry to jump on ya American Empire, but this is just not personal.

The Iranians are far, far less trained or experienced than American soldiers. The Americans relentlessly train their divisions in the NTC on large scale, conventional battles. Their soldiers are battle hardened. The American pilots have twice the training in the air in terms of actual flying.

The dozen of the Iranian F-14s that they could fly are not equipped with AESA radar, they do not have AWAC support and they certainly had no way of touching F-22s.

Total overmatch.

esperanza
02 Jul 08,, 15:45
Hello, it is my first post here... sincerely wish the world a absolute peace.

Will try to be calm before typing after vewing so many ridiculous arguments in this forum.

S2
02 Jul 08,, 17:12
"Will try to be calm before typing after vewing so many ridiculous arguments in this forum."

Your gentle forbearance is deeply appreciated. In light of your concern, perhaps you should consider whether this forum is a good fit for your perspectives?

No doubt that we'd miss the benefit of your wisdom.:))

Officer of Engineers
02 Jul 08,, 17:26
Captain,

The Brits must be rubbing off on you. I never saw so many words to say "take a hike."

S2
02 Jul 08,, 17:36
"I never saw so many words to say "take a hike."

:))

American Empire
02 Jul 08,, 21:43
Alright American Empire,

Here is a hypothetical...........Iran and the U.S. goes to war, in doing so, a fleet of 10 B-2 Spirits evade Iran air defenses, then destroying airfields that house F-14's, F-4's, Mig-29's,......whatever!! How can they do damage.
With this scenario, lets just say that 3 F-14's, 10 F-4's, and 8 Mig-29's are already flying, and are not destroyed.
The U.S. would have a huge fleet of F-18's, F-16's, F-22's, F-15's, maybe the F-35, and that's not including the inventory from ally nations.
If Iran had, oh lets just say 5,000 fighters, then yeah!!, I'm sure there would be some great dog-fights!..........But they don't.....
The only thing Iran has, is outdated American and Russian aircraft.

Also, I really like your quotes on old wars about underestimation!!
Civil Wars, Indian Wars, Vietnam Wars.............Wow, No WWI or WWII?? Those Wars truly show what happens when the U.S., the U.K., and other friends throw everything they have at an enemy..
The Vietnam War, that was nothing more than a political war in which we pulled out because the U.S. population didn't believe in it..........but since you are a American, you should know about that!
That is why all Americans are always support our troops now!!! We have learned from our mistakes in the past.
I have several family members that have served in Vietnam and the always ed told me how when they came home, regular called them "Baby Killers", ect...!!!
Look now!!!...........We respect them, and honor them in monuments and holidays!!!
Since you are a American, you should know that!!!........
But!!! Lets look at the stats........millions killed in Vietnam, while a little over 50,000 killed in the U.S.. What do you consider a Win??
Stop bringing up the past, it is 2008 not 1960, or 1900, or 1850, or whatever!!!
If you are going off the past, we might as well include the 1600's and before!

By the way.............why didn't you include WWII, or WWI?? Is it because they won??

Thanks!!!


Iran has in total under 400 aircraft. I have no doubt that IRIAF will be destroyed. especially with B-2s bombing the runway and F-22s shooting down all aircraft in the air I can't see the US failing. I think the US could easily launch a suriprise and destroy the entire IRIAF on the ground. However this will not happen. Every time the US goes to war there has to be a big anouncement and let the whole world know that the war is coming. The Iranians will be full alert when the wars comes. IRIAF will go down but the question is what kind of damage will they do? I am sure they will down a few US aircraft and sink a ship or two but that is about it.

I listed all those underestimations because the subject was underestimation not US military victories. The Vietnam War as you know was lost by politicans not soldiers. I know a number of Vietnam vets and am told horror stories of how they were treated. It is a damn shame if you ask me.

I including Market Garden and that was from WWII. I don't think Iran can win I am merely stating that Iran is a formable enemy.

American Empire
02 Jul 08,, 21:48
I thought Iran has no more than 3 operational F-14s. Flyable and operational are not exactly the same.

This is my source regarding Iranian airpower.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force - IRIAF / XAIRFORCES (http://xairforces.net/airforces.asp?id=50)

American Empire
02 Jul 08,, 22:02
Sorry to jump on ya American Empire, but this is just not personal.

The Iranians are far, far less trained or experienced than American soldiers. The Americans relentlessly train their divisions in the NTC on large scale, conventional battles. Their soldiers are battle hardened. The American pilots have twice the training in the air in terms of actual flying.

The dozen of the Iranian F-14s that they could fly are not equipped with AESA radar, they do not have AWAC support and they certainly had no way of touching F-22s.

Total overmatch.


I am aware that the Iranians are not as well trained and nowhere as experienced as American soldiers. However I would say the Iranian regulars are about as well trained as Hezbollah and that is pretty squared away.

I am simply following the rule of "hope for the best but prepare for the worst". The Iranians are not as poorly trained as many think however. Both pilot and aircraft are outclassed by the US but that doesn't mean they can't do damage.

The Basij for example is poorly trained and equiped but has over 11 million troops by itself. This makes them a serious threat even though they are poorly armed and trained.

Walking Dead
02 Jul 08,, 23:46
So there are number of cases were the US has underestimated its enemy. Don't think it can't happen cause it can.

My bases for the Iranians being able to do better is

1. they have more advanced (and better mantained) aircraft
2. their pilots are better trained

My bases for the Iranians being better trained should be clear. You can tell just by looking at them (the regulars at least) that they are squared away and ready for a fight.

Here is what you said.


I am aware that the Iranians are not as well trained and nowhere as experienced as American soldiers. However I would say the Iranian regulars are about as well trained as Hezbollah and that is pretty squared away.

I am simply following the rule of "hope for the best but prepare for the worst". The Iranians are not as poorly trained as many think however. Both pilot and aircraft are outclassed by the US but that doesn't mean they can't do damage.

The Basij for example is poorly trained and equiped but has over 11 million troops by itself. This makes them a serious threat even though they are poorly armed and trained.

Here is what you are asserting now. Please reconsider making large posts, meaning of which you cannot remember or understand.

Am I missing something here? OOE, Sir, if I am being out of line, please let me know.

GraniteForge
03 Jul 08,, 01:19
13 overflew Tehran earlier. Iran claims it can make 90% of the Tomcat, to have digitzed its radar etc. They also have a really good smugglign operation going. To the point where mothballed and muesum Tomcats are beign destroyed and ther are no flying private examples. Take it for what its worth, but at lest 13 are flying.

Bella, no offense but your on drugs. Any first strike by the US using B-2's will never be more than 4 craft already forward deployed as part of routine deployments to Guam or Deigo Garcia. the US surges 10 B-2's from Missouri and all hell is goin to break loose as foriegn agents count planes.

Is it possible to put that many in the air at one time? I have been led to understand that a surge would be more like 10 total, with 6-8 sustainable over time.

American Empire
03 Jul 08,, 02:06
Here is what you are asserting now. Please reconsider making large posts, meaning of which you cannot remember or understand.

Am I missing something here? OOE, Sir, if I am being out of line, please let me know.

You misread my post. I was comparing the Iranians to the Iraqis not the Iranian to the Americans. I was merely saying that Iran is much tougher than Iraq not that it is tougher than America.

zraver
03 Jul 08,, 03:09
Is it possible to put that many in the air at one time? I have been led to understand that a surge would be more like 10 total, with 6-8 sustainable over time.


if your talking F-14's they flew 13.

If your talking B-2's the limit is what DG can hold. At least for the first night B-2's will be limited to what is forward deployed so as to not tip off the Iranians. It is a long flight from Missouri to Iran and is plenty of time to scramble and hide stuff and evac key personel, surge the FAC's etc. All of that would be bad for the US. After the first 24 hours its a moot point cause the brown stuff has already hit the whirling stuff and it doesn't matter anymore.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jul 08,, 05:02
Z,

In the Kuwait, Kosovo, and Iraq Wars, B2s flew from the CONUS and the enemy never had a clue.

Bella
04 Jul 08,, 20:19
13 overflew Tehran earlier. Iran claims it can make 90% of the Tomcat, to have digitzed its radar etc. They also have a really good smugglign operation going. To the point where mothballed and muesum Tomcats are beign destroyed and ther are no flying private examples. Take it for what its worth, but at lest 13 are flying.

Bella, no offense but your on drugs. Any first strike by the US using B-2's will never be more than 4 craft already forward deployed as part of routine deployments to Guam or Deigo Garcia. the US surges 10 B-2's from Missouri and all hell is goin to break loose as foriegn agents count planes.

zraver, I'm on some good stuff!!! NO! Just kidding! I know that the U.S. has a very limited amount of B-2's, based out of Missouri, but I proposed a, "HYPOTHETICAL" question. That's all!! Nothing more, nothing less!!
I'm not no military expert.........and I know that the U.S. would never jeopardize 10 B-2's..........that is just silly..........it was just hypothetical, that all!! "Am I offended??..........Hell no..........I only ask that you read someones statements first, and realized that it is a hypothetical question, before attacking a person and accusing them on being on drugs..............
Anyway, in a nutshell, silly statements are going to be answered with silly questions sometimes.......don't you agree??:biggrin::)

Blue
04 Jul 08,, 20:23
Z,

In the Kuwait, Kosovo, and Iraq Wars, B2s flew from the CONUS and the enemy never had a clue. When you can hear them, its already too late! Don't bother running, you'll only die tired. ;)

Stan187
04 Jul 08,, 21:36
When you can hear them, its already too late! Don't bother running, you'll only die tired. ;)

Who says anyone ever even heard 'em?

Blue
05 Jul 08,, 07:37
Who says anyone ever even heard 'em? Its kind of like "if a tree falls in the forest.........??? you know....:rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
05 Jul 08,, 14:25
It's damned hard not to hear the bang ... though it would be the last thing they hear.

Blue
05 Jul 08,, 15:01
It's damned hard not to hear the bang ... though it would be the last thing they hear. I'm sure. However, I've yet to meet any eyewitnesses:rolleyes:

Stan187
05 Jul 08,, 20:07
I'm sure. However, I've yet to meet any eyewitnesses:rolleyes:

Really? No people in the other SF groups witnessed anything like it?

Blue
05 Jul 08,, 21:14
Really? No people in the other SF groups witnessed anything like it? I'm just saying that by the time you hear the plane(if you hear it at all), and you are on the target, its too late to say uh-oh. As for other grps I can't speak for. I've been off active since 88 and we didn't have the b2. I'm sure a lot of guys in Iraq have observed the b2s handywork.

American Empire
05 Jul 08,, 21:47
I'm just saying that by the time you hear the plane(if you hear it at all), and you are on the target, its too late to say uh-oh. As for other grps I can't speak for. I've been off active since 88 and we didn't have the b2. I'm sure a lot of guys in Iraq have observed the b2s handywork.

The B-2 is indeed a nice aircraft. They will be put to good use against Iranian airbases.

Stitch
06 Jul 08,, 03:55
My guess is there's not much to hear; they probably emit as much noise as a comtemporary airliner (or less). And, since they're flying at about 10K feet, they probably aren't very detectable, even audibly. At night, I would guess they're virtually undetectable.

Blue
06 Jul 08,, 04:21
My guess is there's not much to hear; they probably emit as much noise as a comtemporary airliner (or less). And, since they're flying at about 10K feet, they probably aren't very detectable, even audibly. At night, I would guess they're virtually undetectable. I live in southwest MO and evidently right on one of the military airways. Almost daily a pair of B2s fly over accompanied by a tanker. Trust me, they are very loud. They are higher than most jetliners, which I never hear, and they just roll like thunder. Sometimes I can hear them even when I'm in the house.

bengalraider
06 Jul 08,, 10:56
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/saghegh.html
the united states shall have to face stiff opposition from iranian militia in urban warfare if they are armed with upgraded rpg's such as these these babies fired from a sufficiently close distance can probably kill an abrams:eek:

S2
06 Jul 08,, 23:12
"...they are armed with upgraded rpg's such as these these babies fired from a sufficiently close distance can probably kill an abrams..."

Anybody suggest that we'd be invading and need tanks?

Stan187
07 Jul 08,, 22:53
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/saghegh.html
the united states shall have to face stiff opposition from iranian militia in urban warfare if they are armed with upgraded rpg's such as these these babies fired from a sufficiently close distance can probably kill an abrams:eek:

My answer to that is that the Iranian RPG-armed militia will have to face stiff opposition from infantry, engineers, CAS, and artillery that are covering the Abrams' ass.

citanon
07 Jul 08,, 23:04
"...they are armed with upgraded rpg's such as these these babies fired from a sufficiently close distance can probably kill an abrams..."

Anybody suggest that we'd be invading and need tanks?

I've always thought that Iran would have some trouble running their nuclear program if every power generating plant in the country were to suddenly break down due to the magic of air power....

zraver
09 Jul 08,, 01:06
Z,

In the Kuwait, Kosovo, and Iraq Wars, B2s flew from the CONUS and the enemy never had a clue.

They didn't fly in 91. In Kosovo, Serbia had spies out side the bases in Italy with cell phones calling in every strike that took off. Serbia never planned for war with the US and did not have a large expat community,Iran is doing both.


Bella, absolutely 100%

Sticth, they are very loud when taking off. You can't make a jet quiet at zero elevation

Citanon,

ya no power, no water, no bridges= no nuclear program.

Dreadnought
09 Jul 08,, 17:55
Might I offer The Kosovo Campaign: Airpower Made It Work (Operations in April: A Tough Job for Aerospace Power) (http://www.afa.org/media/reports/april.asp)

A small snipet....

The Operational Environment

To carry out a sustained air campaign, NATO tapped primarily the resources of the US Air Force. For the Air Force, the commitment to the Kosovo campaign quickly went from a contingency operation to a major theater war. The Air Force had downsized 40% since 1989. That meant that Kosovo strained the smaller force and tested its new concept for expeditionary operations. By percentage, the USAF deployed a higher share of its active and reserve force than at any time in the last three decades. The commitment to Vietnam consumed about 15% of the US Air Force's assets. Desert Storm took about 30%. During Kosovo, almost half of the force was deployed to Kosovo and other operations. High-demand Command, Control, Communications, and Computers/Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) assets were deployed at a rate of about 45% of the total in the fleet. Approximately 22% of the bombers and 44% of the fighters were engaged. Critical assets like F-16CJ defense suppression fighters were almost totally dedicated to the theater. More than 40% of the Air Force's tankers were in use-and a staggering 80% of the tanker crews were called to action. President Clinton called up reserve component forces in late April to keep the air war going.

Just as the air war in Desert Storm marked a leap forward in capabilities in 1991, the Kosovo operation demonstrated that aerospace power had evolved above and beyond what it had been almost a decade earlier. Many aspects of the Kosovo campaign resembled other operations in the 1990s. But unique rules of engagement and the spectacular debut of new systems marked points of special interest in the campaign. All along, the overriding challenge was to summon expeditionary airpower, and unleash the aircrews to carry out the missions they had been trained to do.

Operations began with constant combat air patrols over Kosovo and Bosnia. Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) assets were also on call. Then, strike packages, most with dedicated SEAD assets, would be assigned to specific missions. Operation Allied Force included combinations of NATO and US aircraft, and some US-only packages. NATO seized and held air dominance from the start of the operation. However, the operational environment for NATO airmen flying over Yugoslavia held many challenges.

Air defenses. Yugoslavia's air defenses could present a considerable challenge, as NATO airmen well knew. Just before the air war began, USAF head Ryan cautioned: "There's no assurances that we won't lose aircraft in trying to take on those air defenses." 35 The air defense system in Yugoslavia, especially around Belgrade, was dense, and mobile Surface-to-Air-Missiles (SAMs) added more complexity.

Targets in the integrated air defense system were included in the first night's strikes. However, even as NATO gained freedom to operate, the Yugoslav air defense strategy presented some unorthodox challenges. Reports suggested that spotters used cell phones and a chain of observers to monitor allied aircraft as they took off. Many times, the air defense system simply did not "come up" to challenge NATO strikes. "Their SAM operators were, in the end, afraid to bring the SAMs up and engage our fighters because of the lethality of our SEAD aircraft," Gen. John P. Jumper, Commander, US Air Forces in Europe, remarked. 36

That was a mixed blessing. The Yugoslavs could not prevent NATO from attacking key targets, but they could--and did--make it tough to completely decimate the air defense system. Yugoslav air defenses were not efficient, but they were not dead, either. Jumper characterized the anti-aircraft artillery and man-portable SAM threat as "very robust." As a consequence, pilots often got warnings that SAMs were active while on their missions. An initial assessment from pilot reports and other sources tallied almost 700 missile shots: 266 from SA-6s, 174 from SA-3s, 106 from man-portable systems, and another 126 from unidentified systems. One informal estimate concluded a pilot was more than twice as likely to be shot at by SAMs over Kosovo than in Desert Storm. Individual anti-aircraft artillery pieces were very active and often became targets as the campaign progressed.

Crews in the B-1 bomber counted at least 30 SAM shots during the first 50 missions they flew from their in-theater base at RAF Fairford, in England. Fortunately the ALE-50 electronic countermeasures towed decoy pod-reeled out behind the aircraft-proved its value. Ten SAMs locked onto the B-1s and were diverted by the decoy pods. 37 An A-10 reportedly had to return to base after a SAM exploded nearby, causing a mechanical failure.

Overall, NATO did not destroy as many SAMs as air planners would have liked. Preliminary data from the Joint Staff estimated that two out of a total of three SA-2s were hit and 10 of 13 SA-3s were destroyed. However, early estimates cited kills of only three of about 22 SA-6s. "We learned from this war that it is a different ball game when SAMs don't come up to fight," acknowledged Jumper. The concept of operations for lethal SEAD depended on targeting individual batteries as they begin to track and illuminate friendly aircraft. Jumper explained, "Everything that we do is predicated on the bad guy's willingness to engage." When the SAMs went into hiding, that gave NATO airmen access to the targets, but it also kept "that element of doubt out there," Jumper said. 38 \ With the adversary keeping much of the system under wraps, it was hard to turn SEAD--the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses--into DEAD--the Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses

Castellano
11 Jul 08,, 11:54
Anybody suggest that we'd be invading and need tanks?


OK, since the Objective is to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and this can be done basically from the air, no invasion/occupation is theoretically needed.

However; Iran is certain to retaliate by trying to close the Gulf. Lets assume that all major Iranian assets able to hit shipping are neutralized within 3 weeks.

Still, I wonder if it would be possible to really neutralize the threat to shipping without actually going in there and sweeping the entire coastline, at least partly, to create a buffer zone. I don’t know what sort of rockets/missiles they posses, but if they have a few like the one that hit the Israeli ship in the 2006 Lebanon war, they could easily wreak havoc in the Gulf indefinitely.

In short, some limited invasion of the coastline could be needed after all, not only the islands.

Anyone wants to comment on the above scenario?

In a broader sense, whatever happens in the coastline front and elsewhere, would depend on what happens in the first few weeks:

If Iran goes all out, Iran’s army would be destroyed, and in loosing such an instrument, the regime would be in trouble. To start with, all kinds of regional issues would be likely to pop-up not far down the road.

And if they don’t respond in force, the regime would be in trouble anyway.

It's an often mentioned dilemma: should we go for regime change, or should we go for war?

I just want to point out that even a limited war may well bring regime change.

AND the absolutely vital end to their nuke program.

S2
11 Jul 08,, 17:32
"In short, some limited invasion of the coastline could be needed after all, not only the islands."

You'd better specify as an invasion to secure Iran's coast adjacent to the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz likely entails the occupation of hundreds of linear miles of coastline to a significant depth. Undoable for any combination of armies in the world today.

"It's an often mentioned dilemma: should we go for regime change, or should we go for war?"

Clock's ticking and the timelines are short. What have you to offer in the way of regime change that will create a satisfactory and TIMELY response to Iran's nuclear weapons development? To date, our favorable perception by the Iranian people has garnered little realistic assistance in reversing this march to war. Don't know if it'll be GWB any longer but I do know that Iran's ambitions haven't changed and somebody will be president when they actually acquire nuclear weapons. By then it'll be too late to reverse the scenario short of regional war which (quite likely) may go nuclear.

Castellano
11 Jul 08,, 21:39
You'd better specify as an invasion to secure Iran's coast adjacent to the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz likely entails the occupation of hundreds of linear miles of coastline to a significant depth. Undoable for any combination of armies in the world today.

If it is not doable, then with a few of those C-802 and similar hardware, they can have the Persian Gulf as closed as the gates of heaven are for Ajdmedi-jacket. They basically can bring the world economy to its knees with a few jeeps.




What have you to offer in the way of regime change that will create a satisfactory and TIMELY response to Iran's nuclear weapons development?

I don't think is possible to have regime change before they get the bomb. It just won't happen.

Having said that, even if there was a regime change, if Iran gets nukes with whatever regime is in charge, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria...would follow suit, and a nuclear exchange in the ME is almost certain in the near future. In my opinion, it would also mean the end of Western Civilization.

It is clear by now that no combination of incentives/sanctions would do the trick. I think nothing short of war will stop Iran's regime quest for nukes.

So I think such a war is absolutely essential.

American Empire
11 Jul 08,, 22:08
I have been reading through various threads with people talking about things about how the US should invade Iran but how should Iran defend itself against a US invasion? The best way to plan is to put yourself in your enemies shoes and plan accordingly.

Allow me to start. I for example am a 19 year old guy who has yet to serve in the military so I would probably find someone who was more quaiflied than me and I don't think that would be hard. But in any case I would do the following. If I was in command of the Iranian forces I would do the following:

The first order of business would be to considerably limit but not totally eliminate human wave attacks by groups like the Basij. Charging in a massive wave against machine guns and tanks is simply suicide. I would try to dig most of them into the mountains, cities and wooded areas. Building bunkers, machine gun nests and tank traps as well as underground networks linking the various bunkers together. The Basij would start the firefight and get the attention of the US troops while the regulars from the IRIA and IRGC flanked them for maximum results. A human wave attack might be in order if the US soldiers got close to the Basij simply to drive them back. The Basij are poorly trained and equipped but very numerous and thus very expendable. Their would probably be a large number of Basij in reserve which could be sent in a human wave attack if and when the regulars flanked their enemy.

No armored battles would take place. The Iranians have only a limited number of Z tanks available the rest are 2nd generation MBTs such as the T-72 and M60 Patton among others. None of these outdated models are a match for a Abrams, Challenger 2 or Merkava. They would be deployed into the cities were they could ambush the tanks and infantry of the invader. Snipers would be placed in buildings where they can snipe unsuspecting soldiers and IEDs would be set up all over every road. AT (anti-tank) crews with ATGMs, RPG-29s or the classic RPG-7.


The IRIAF and IRGCAF cannot hope to gain control of the skies against US airpower so I would not bother wasting time with meaningless dogfights. I would go after the US naval assests. Pilots flying attack aircraft like the SU-24 and SU-25 and F-5s along with a small number of F-4s would be sent after the US ships as F-14s, MiG-29s and F-4s fly escort. Now The US 5th Fleet is going to be large and in charge. And Iran is not going to be able to defeat it. I seriously doubt Iran would be able to sink a Nimitz-class carrier but they might be able to do enough damage to where it has to pull out of the fight. The whole attack run would be a one shot deal the aircraft would likely be shot down and all the runways they came from destroyed by the end. On the other hand sinking a number of the smaller frigates and destroyers is a real possibility. A full combined arms offensive against the US fleet would be launched fast attack/missile boats, aircraft and ASMs would all be deployed. I would simply forget about sending the frigates and destroyers in. They would be sitting ducks for F-18s.

I would use the Kilo-class submarines in the gulf of Oman to terrorize the tankers and drive the price of oil WAY up. Getting back to the small and nimble missile boats… The sheer number of them alongside the faster attack boats would be what I would try to use to max effect. They would go after frigates, destroyers and cruisers which are launching missiles into Iran and maybe a LHD if one gets that close along with terrorizing any landing craft. I would expect none of these ships or aircraft to return home…

The best way to counter US airpower would be MANPADs and SAMs not in dogfights, Dogfighting is a simple waste of aircraft on the part of the Iranians and they know that. MANPADs and RPGs would be used to take down low flying helicopters. The SAMs would be camouflaged to conceal them from aircraft conducting SEAD ops. If they had to be deployed in the open place burning tires under them in the hopes that the US pilots will mistake them for already destroyed vehicles.

Within the cities I would mobilize a fleet of cars too be stuffed full of weapons and ammo and they would drive throughout the countryside arming the civilians who would then act as insurgents to conduct behind enemy lines assaults. Qods Force and Takavaran personal would probably be deployed to lead these small groups. They would go about setting up IEDs and attack out of nowhere. The cities would be much better defeated with a armed civilian population, The middle east is full of weapons and I am sure Iran could come up with more than enough small arms to put these plan into practice.

Artillery pieces would be placed into bunkers and buildings overlooking places were armor is likely to come through and NOT in the open. If placed out into the open they will be subject to a none stop attack from the air. So it would be wise to build bunkers in the mountains and hills overlooking roads where they can get clean shots at incoming armored forces.

Iran has a number of attack-helicopters, these would surely be destroyed very quickly the second they attempted to provide close air support. So I would order them to be stripped of their weapons which would then go into emplacing vulcan cannons into bunkers and the hellfire missiles would go into making IEDs among other things. Which is not saying the mighty MG3 could not do a bang up job. The sidewinders and other AAMs would be placed on the fighter aircraft for the assault on the US fleet. The hallowed out helicopters would be placed in the open so the US will waste bombs and missiles on them.

Getting back to the air war all aircraft would be deployed against the US fleet during a time in which hostilities were hours away from opening up to prevent the aircraft from being destroyed on the ground. Every last fighter would be deployed against the US naval assests, as I said before they won’t be any to return to base. Trainer aircraft and all other aircraft not equiped with armament would be chocked full of explosives as well as fuel and piloted by inexperienced pilots who are willing to crash the aircraft into a US ship. The damage they would do would be massive. I am sure most of them would be shot down before reaching their target due to the fact most of these aircraft are subsonic but if one of them managed to crash into a ship it would likely sink.

More later.

Parihaka
11 Jul 08,, 22:32
r...would follow suit, and a nuclear exchange in the ME is almost certain in the near future. In my opinion, it would also mean the end of Western Civilization.

Why?

ozjohn39
11 Jul 08,, 23:19
I would first have identified all of my VERY important (nuke) facilities, and placed them in VERY deep holes in the mountains very near, or even IN the city of Mashhad.

If the 'bulls eye' is too far away to hit, it won't be attacked.


John.

Castellano
11 Jul 08,, 23:25
It would mean the end of Western Civilization because of the kind of leverage Islamo-fascist ideology would attain over the rest of us.

Lets have an example:

Imagine a cartoon crisis with the likes of Iran or Saudi Arabia armed with nuclear weapons.

Would the cartoons be even published in the first place?

No, I think we will eventually pass laws that effectively ban free speech, pretending to use some lame multicultural excuse.

No free speech=No Western Civilization

Free speech is the base of everything else for an open society.

Regarding this cartoon row, it's funny, but the spineless Europe did behave more bravely than the US. In Europe, the cartoons were widely reprinted. In the US, almost no one did. They said it was out of multiculti respect, but they were just afraid.

So how afraid would they be knowing that nukes could be in the equation?

Or consider the scenario in which there is a nuclear attack in ANY western city. The very first consequence would be huge populations willingly giving up their hard conquered liberties for the sake of "security". Whole nations will become fascist overnight. Starting with a lot of PC folks, by the way.

And how likely is going to be an attack on a city with nukes all over the Middle East?

VERY

Parihaka
11 Jul 08,, 23:42
Imagine a cartoon crisis with the likes of Iran or Saudi Arabia armed with nuclear weapons.

Would the cartoons be even published in the first place?

No, I think we will eventually pass laws that effectively ban free speech, pretending to use some lame multicultural excuse.

No free speech=No Western Civilization Didn't happen with the Soviets, and they had the capacity to destroy us many times over compared to what Persia/Arabia/Caliphate could conceivably build.



Regarding this cartoon row, it's funny, but the spineless Europe did behave more bravely than the US. In Europe, the cartoons were widely reprinted. In the US, almost no one did. They said it was out of multiculti respect, but they were just afraid.Yep. Afraid. This would be why they are doing the heavy lifting in two wars while Europe stands by and watches. Because they're afraid. Yep.


So how afraid would they be knowing that nukes could be in the equation?
You mean like the cold war?


Or consider the scenario in which there is a nuclear attack in ANY western city. The very first consequence would be huge populations willingly giving up their hard conquered liberties for the sake of "security".The first consequence would be the country/countries of origin becoming glass parking lots.
Whole nations will become fascist overnight. Starting with a lot of PC folks, by the way.What aspects of national socialism gives it an advantage over any other political system and population management system? After all, democracy (with cessation of elections and unity governments) pissed all over national socialism and militaristic societies during WWII.


And how likely is going to be an attack on a city with nukes all over the Middle East?

VERY
Not very but yes likely, it will occur however only once.;)

physicsmonk
11 Jul 08,, 23:47
Did west ban free speech while staring down USSR? So why are you guys so afraid now.One of the hall marks of west as I see is going all out to defend their way of life even to the extent of being ruthless.Muslim world already has nukes.
Pakistan.But can they lob it towards you.No.



And how likely is going to be an attack on a city with nukes all over the Middle East?

VERY

Do you mean a Jehadi backpack nuke?

physicsmonk
11 Jul 08,, 23:50
Parihaka beat me to it.:redface:

Parihaka
11 Jul 08,, 23:53
Parihaka beat me to it.:redface:

The point is well worth reinforcing;)

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 00:28
Guys, first of all, I'm talking about the day AFTER there was a nuclear attack. I think you would agree that every single western society will shift right; willingly giving up their freedoms in the name of some security. People would literally do anything they are told, if somebody convinces them that they'd be safer that way. Not only shift to the right, they will happily embrace Fascism, with outspoken racism and all.

I believe even a dirty bomb would be immensely dangerous for the survival of open societies.

But also, the USSR was a completely different ball game. They weren't a suicidal sect that believes the coming of the 12th Iman should be hastened...

Lets examine this in more detail.

Parihaka
12 Jul 08,, 01:16
Guys, first of all, I'm talking about the day AFTER there was a nuclear attack. I think you would agree that every single western society will shift right; willingly giving up their freedoms in the name of some security. People would literally do anything they are told, if somebody convinces them that they'd be safer that way. Not only shift to the right, they will happily embrace Fascism, with outspoken racism and all.
And you're missing the point that it hasn't happened in the past so why should it happen now? 9/11 wasn't on the scale of a city but psychologically, mostly because of instant media, it had much the same effect on the American people. Did they immediately start saluting the Swastika and rounding up the Arabs when that happened? Nope, they launched a war against the country that had trained the killers and was sheltering the leaders. Strangely enough their own country didn't collapse into a freedom denying, racist 'right wing' hell hole.


I believe even a dirty bomb would be immensely dangerous for the survival of open societies. I am astonished at your belief that open societies are so fragile. Were they developed in hot houses? did they not have competition and war with totalitarian regimes of all types? Yet somehow now a simple bit of slaughter is supposed to turn us belly up?



But also, the USSR was a completely different ball game. They weren't a suicidal sect that believes the coming of the 12th Iman should be hastened...

Neither is 99% or more of Islam. I'm sure there are as many Christians who want to bring about the rapture as there are muslims, yet they're (Christians) not regarded as a threat because of their beliefs, and the Soviets were just as ideologically driven as the vast majority of Muslims, with some fanatics just as crazy as the irhabi.

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 01:17
Didn't happen with the Soviets, and they had the capacity to destroy us many times over compared to what Persia/Arabia/Caliphate could conceivably build.

The soviet nomenklatura also had their Dachas. They were rational actors that cannot be compared to a medieval irredentist mentality. Some of the radicals are not only willing, but actually eager to suicide, and take down as many infidels as they can along the way.



Yep. Afraid. This would be why they are doing the heavy lifting in two wars while Europe stands by and watches. Because they're afraid. Yep.

I was talking specifically about this cartoon crisis.

I wasn't talking about the character of the US in general.

In fact, I think in comparison, here in Eurabia we are a bunch of cowards.

But in that particular crisis, only two newspapers in the entire US republished the cartoons. The rest alleged multiculti sensibilities.

They were just AFRAID.

In Europe, they were widely republished, that's just a fact.

That's why I say it's "funny".Because I believe there is a lesson to be learned there. I haven't reflected on it enough yet.



You mean like the cold war?

No, I mean a lot worse than the cold war. You can forget the whole Deterrence concept that worked during the Cold War.



The first consequence would be the country/countries of origin becoming glass parking lots.

I meant the social worldwide consequences. You know it, and are just trying to provoke me...;)


What aspects of national socialism gives it an advantage over any other political system and population management system? After all, democracy (with cessation of elections and unity governments) pissed all over national socialism and militaristic societies during WWII.

In an uncertain situation, the masses tend to follow whatever hack that is able to utter the word: ORDER!
It's just they way it works.
Having said that, there is nothing like a totalitarian regime to achieve efficiency in time of war.
Also, Germany wasn't defeated only by democracies, I believe the USSR gave a hand too.

So your argument holds no water, and you know it, and are just trying to provoke me ;)

Parihaka
12 Jul 08,, 01:26
I meant the social worldwide consequences. You know it, and are just trying to provoke me...;)


I know nothing of the sort, and I am not trying to provoke you, I am not a troll.
What I am trying to do is point out the idiocy of your statements that a simple attack against the west is going to cause our democratic and free societies to simply fold up like a house of cards, when history over the last few hundred years has proven the exact opposite.
What HAS happened is that when a large enough threat/attack comes along to make us actually get off our lazy arses, we wipe the floor with the opposition with examples of barbarity that leave the petty tyranical ideologues gasping. Then we take the loot and go home to enjoy our comfortable lives once more.

Parihaka
12 Jul 08,, 01:32
In an uncertain situation, the masses tend to follow whatever hack that is able to utter the word: ORDER!
It's just they way it works.


Sorry, I missed this: so you're a believer in the sheeple idea then? That people generally are stupid and have to be lead around?

physicsmonk
12 Jul 08,, 01:37
Castellano, I think one reason not many in US published those cartoons is leadership of US in GWOT.The narrative of GWOT in islamic societies is that US is a big satan on a crusade against Islam. To win GWOT help of these societies(or their regimes rather) is needed.Why rub these regimes the wrong way.I guess its pragmatism and not fear.
Let EU have all the fun of being a loudmouth employee.;)

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 02:16
And you're missing the point that it hasn't happened in the past so why should it happen now? 9/11 wasn't on the scale of a city but psychologically, mostly because of instant media, it had much the same effect on the American people. Did they immediately start saluting the Swastika and rounding up the Arabs when that happened? Nope, they launched a war against the country that had trained the killers and was sheltering the leaders. Strangely enough their own country didn't collapse into a freedom denying, racist 'right wing' hell hole.

What hasn't happened in the past?

A nuclear attack in a western city you mean? I thought we have already established that a nuclear attack is likely if the Middle East becomes 'Nukes are Us'

Or are you saying that in the past, western societies have not suddenly turned fascist in times of fear. If that is your assertion, you are wrong. It's actually the main explanation of facism

Yeah, wait until downtown Chicago starts to "shine" and see what happens to the entire Civil Rights legislation.

Are you seriously contending this?


I am astonished at your belief that open societies are so fragile. Were they developed in hot houses? did they not have competition and war with totalitarian regimes of all types? Yet somehow now a simple bit of slaughter is supposed to turn us belly up?

You can clearly see the pain threshold has gone waaay down. 4000 deaths in 4 years in Iraq is a quagmire, that's a medium size WWII battle.
We are ALREADY giving up liberties, of speech, of privacy. What not with nukes on the table?


Neither is 99% or more of Islam. I'm sure there are as many Christians who want to bring about the rapture as there are muslims, yet they're (Christians) not regarded as a threat because of their beliefs, and the Soviets were just as ideologically driven as the vast majority of Muslims, with some fanatics just as crazy as the irhabi.

You are wrong about the 99% figure.

One of the irredentist in a quite sizable fanatic muslim population is that guy Ajmedinajad. Do you actually know what are his beliefs? Are you telling me that he has one ideology and then Brezhnev had another ideology?

I think what you don't get is that we are talking about different mind sets. A lot of people in the muslim world have not gone through their french revolution. It cannot be compared with a modern ideology. Apples and Oranges.

Have you traveled around the Middle East or North Africa? It's not necessary to be able to get it, but it helps.

Parihaka
12 Jul 08,, 02:49
What hasn't happened in the past?

A nuclear attack in a western city you mean? I thought we have already established that a nuclear attack is likely if the Middle East becomes 'Nukes are Us'No


Or are you saying that in the past, western societies have not suddenly turned fascist in times of fear.Yes

If that is your assertion, you are wrong. It's actually the main explanation of facismI'm aware of Italy, Spain and Germany, none of which were under any form of direct attack from without at the time. The growth of fascism was a political event in the same vein as the growth of communism, and was not the result of an external threat/attack. So I'd like to hear you actually back up all these assertions you've been making for a change.


Yeah, wait until downtown Chicago starts to "shine" and see what happens to the entire Civil Rights legislation.Democracies can and do regularly impose states of emergencies for controlling large populations during crises. Is this what you are alluding to? Or just that the/any government will automatically turn fascist, as though it's some sort of pre-programmed response? That our leaders and bureaucrats are all closet facists just dying for the chance to reimpose fascism at the drop of a hat?


Are you seriously contending this?
:rolleyes:




You can clearly see the pain threshold has gone waaay down. 4000 deaths in 4 years in Iraq is a quagmire, that's a medium size WWII battle.
We are ALREADY giving up liberties, of speech, of privacy. What not with nukes on the table? Really? What liberties have you given up? Name some.




You are wrong about the 99% figure.Then give me a more accurate one


One of the irredentist in a quite sizable fanatic muslim population.....Again, what is your source for this claim
...is that guy Ajmedinajad. Do you actually know what are his beliefs? Are you telling me that he has one ideology and then Brezhnev had another ideology?I simply do not understand what you are trying to say here.


I think what you don't get is that we are talking about different mind sets. A lot of people in the muslim world have not gone through their french revolution. You are aware that a lot of Muslims regularly post on this and other boards, aren't you? That in fact Muslims travel and live in other countries. I in fact have an Omani Muslim (devout I assure you) living with me at the moment. She's studying linguistics at university.

It cannot be compared with a modern ideology. Apples and Oranges. what can't? The 'Muslim world' is a very large thing. Do you mean Balochistan and Waziristan, Dubai and the UAE, Istanbul, Cairo, Baghdad, Jakarta or just 'Muslims'?


Have you traveled around the Middle East or North Africa? It's not necessary to be able to get it, but it helps.Nope, but central and southern America, South-east Asia and Eastern Europe. Does that help? They're Muslims in South-east Asia after all...

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 06:05
Did west ban free speech while staring down USSR?

Yes, but in the inverse way. The cold war was fought just about in every single corner of the planet. You could have not published a book in Spain about the advantages of social democracy during the 1960s. But Franco was OK because he was anti-red. The petty dictators in Central & South America were SOBs, but they were our SOBs, so they were OK too. Even democratically elected Allende had to go, because he was a commie. The US had McCarthy too. All kinds of freedoms were curtailed in the altar of the conflict.

And just to clarify, when I'm saying "the west" as of 2008, I mean something bigger than just the side that won the cold war. I repeat, just to clarify.

But the issue of free speech doesn't have to be proved. It is already here. When only two newspapers in the entire US published the cartoons, was it because their readers didn't have interest?

Of course not.

Most people hadn't even seen them and were curious.

But the media was AFRAID

It is true though, that in America, since they are leading two wars on muslim soil, might have thought, lets not stir this more.
But apparently is quite OK to equate the US Army with some oil-stealing-nazi-gang. That's fine and can be said loud and clear.

What joke is this?

This might seem an anecdote, but is a huge event. It means that the media has internalized it, and it translates into all kinds of self-censorship and political correctness. All in detriment of free speech.



So why are you guys so afraid now.


I have to confess you, I'm worried.

But to go to the specifics: I believe Deterrence is gone.



One of the hall marks of west as I see is going all out to defend their way of life even to the extent of being ruthless.

I'm not sure at all we are like that anymore, but I don't think we don't need to be ruthless either.



Muslim world already has nukes.
Pakistan.But can they lob it towards you.No.

Musharaf, like many others throughout the muslim world, is a rational actor. Lets hope Pakistan doesn't deteriorate in that sense.

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 10:54
I'm aware of Italy, Spain and Germany, none of which were under any form of direct attack from without at the time. The growth of fascism was a political event in the same vein as the growth of communism, and was not the result of an external threat/attack. So I'd like to hear you actually back up all these assertions you've been making for a change.

Fair enough.

I have to prove my speculation that a catastrophic attack would lead to an unprecedented clampdown of individual liberties in the entire West.

Do you agree that the Patriot Act actually curtails individual freedoms?

Do you think it would have been passed had there not been 9/11?

In an scenario where there is a nuclear attack day+1

Wouldn't the police require further powers to better secure the population?

Is it a wild guess to think that those additional powers would be in conflict with current standards of individual freedoms?

Is hard to prove the future, but this is no wild guess.

It will be a transformation into the direction of a police State. I also believe it would be xenophobic.That's why I qualify the reaction as Fascism-like, not the literal return of black-shirts. Just for the record: The attacks in Madrid and London were pulled by people from within, living in spanish society. Not from outside.




Democracies can and do regularly impose states of emergencies for controlling large populations during crises. Is this what you are alluding to?

No, I mean the adoption of PERMANENT police-state like powers by the state.


Or just that the/any government will automatically turn fascist, as though it's some sort of pre-programmed response? That our leaders and bureaucrats are all closet facists just dying for the chance to reimpose fascism at the drop of a hat?

Not leaders and bureaucrats. The population itself will voluntarily surrender individual rights to the State. Is fascist the word to define such state? I'll tell you what: racists discourses will have plenty of potential public if there is a nuclear attack.

I am very proud that in my country Spain, there has been no backlash against Muslim immigrants after the bombings. There are problems to be sure, but unrelated. A second o third bombing of that magnitude will change all that for the worse or much worse. I can't prove it though, you'll have to take my word for it.

But if I were to try to prove it, I would examine the statistics and opinion polls of UK subjects over issues of perception of other ethnic groups in the last 4 years. I would try to match the data with the perpetrated and attempted attacks, to determine if there is a growth in the intolerance related. I bet there is, although I don't have such data.

I just live in Europe and my completely subjective perception is that intolerance is growing, and terrorism is a factor in that growth.



Really? What liberties have you given up? Name some.

The right to make an anonymous call from my mobile. Anti-terrorism was the explicit motive alleged to oblige everybody to register their phone numbers after the attacjs in Madrid.

I'm now obliged to go through lengthy security scrutiny when I catch a plane. Is half an hour of more wait. Could be trivial, depending on the amount of planes you catch.

Spain is a country where there was anti-terrorist laws prior to the Madrid bombings due to ETA, and is the country whose legislation I know. But I'm sure throughout Europe legislation has empowered the police. Those new powers come from the citizens. I'm no legal expert, but I'll try to get examples of countries where Habeas Corpus has been "redefined" as of late. I'm sure there are.



Then give me a more accurate one

My argument was that members of the current leadership in Iran belong to an irredentist sect.

That's why I misread your statement.

But it doesn't really matter what the other 99,99% of Muslims think about the 12th Iman, does it? They are not the ones who would have access to the button.

So I misread your statement, I of course agree with you that only a tiny minority, less that 1% of Muslims, is willing to immolate themselves to advance their agenda.
They don't come out of the blue though. They fester in populations that show way too much tolerance to suicidal attacks on civilians, whatever the actual justification they use. 12th Iman, Wahabism or whatever.



Again, what is your source for this claim

I'm refering to the Hojjatieh sect of Shiism. I don't know the exact number of followers, nor would I count every single follower as an irredentist despite their faith. But neither would I discount followers of other beliefs within Shiism as not-irredentist.



I simply do not understand what you are trying to say here.

I mean that the soviets were ideologically driven, just like everybody else. But you cannot compare a post French Revolution ideology such communism with a medieval Theology. They are qualitative different in the issues they cover and how they cover them. Crucially, in the question of faith and revealed truth: one of the two is more prone to produce rational actors.



You are aware that a lot of Muslims regularly post on this and other boards, aren't you? That in fact Muslims travel and live in other countries. I in fact have an Omani Muslim (devout I assure you) living with me at the moment. She's studying linguistics at university.
what can't? The 'Muslim world' is a very large thing. Do you mean Balochistan and Waziristan, Dubai and the UAE, Istanbul, Cairo, Baghdad, Jakarta or just 'Muslims'?

Yes I'm aware that there are Muslims on the board. You must say it because you think I have been offensive to Muslims?

How come?

I personally don't respect or despise a Muslim, Christian or Zoroastran because they are Muslim, Christian or Zoroastran.

As I grow older, I have ceased being hostile to religion.

I do respect all religions, as an unbeliever. So it is impossible for me to insult say Islam or Muslims because it's just not the way I am or think.

I don't respect sanctioning murder though.

I had muslim friends too, and we traveled the Sahara together. I wouldn't talk about a Muslim in a different way than a Catholic or Bhuddist, because he/she is a Muslim.

But I would defend the right of some idiot to go ahead and insult the pope in a written comment if he wishes to do so.

I defend my right to blasphemy too. Not for the blasphemy itself, but mainly for the sake of free speech.

And religious people are not the only ones that can be offended.

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 12:57
I know nothing of the sort, and I am not trying to provoke you, I am not a troll.
What I am trying to do is point out the idiocy of your statements that a simple attack against the west is going to cause our democratic and free societies to simply fold up like a house of cards, when history over the last few hundred years has proven the exact opposite.
What HAS happened is that when a large enough threat/attack comes along to make us actually get off our lazy arses, we wipe the floor with the opposition with examples of barbarity that leave the petty tyranical ideologues gasping. Then we take the loot and go home to enjoy our comfortable lives once more.

To provoke debate, I meant, not me personally.

You are the one who qualifies a nuclear attack on a western city as a "simple" attack.

I have to say I disagree.

In such scenario only an idiot would discard a shakedown of society that would involve a regression into authoritarian politics and loss of freedoms. I think it is certain to happen. I can't prove it though.

In this kind of debate of political fiction over future developments some measure of speculation is a given.

But let me get this right:

In your opinion a nuclear attack on a western city is unlikely to affect Democracy or Individual Rights in any meaningful way.

If that is so Parihaka, at least one of us two doesn't have a clue about the World we are living in.

Parihaka
12 Jul 08,, 13:19
But let me get this right:

In your opinion a nuclear attack on a western city is unlikely to affect Democracy or Individual Rights in any meaningful way. Correct. Democracy is not the hot house flower you claim it to be, otherwise it would not have survived the past 100 years of turmoil.


If that is so Parihaka, at least one of us two doesn't have a clue about the World we are living in.The world is a very big place. You grew up in a Fascist state, me in a Socialist one. Both became free(ish) market democracies. Why is that?

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 13:40
Look, I actually think that Liberal Democracies will prevail.

So:

The End of Western Civilization

Yes, a bit exaggerated horror movie title.

But not at all out of the question I think.

Nevertheless, I'm terribly concerned about all the horrible things that can happen until open societies do prevail. And there are decades of ordeal still to go.

Castellano
12 Jul 08,, 14:03
Sorry, I missed this: so you're a believer in the sheeple idea then? That people generally are stupid and have to be lead around?

No. I'm stating that the most cultural advanced societies can become willing executioners of genocide. Or many other nasty things, given the right circumstances. I believe a nuclear attack on a city would awake more the Hobbesian instincts rather than Rousseau. This would naturally translate into specific policies.

Sameer
12 Jul 08,, 18:52
Iran should simply begin to cut its daily oil output by say 500,000 barrels. Just doing that would make oil prices go upto 170. It should threaten to do more of it. If oil prices continue to rise, the US and much of the world will get screwed. Iran should also threaten to blow up oil fields in the region., They only have one chance to do so but they can sent insurgents in Iraq to do the job easily. If Iraq goes offline by even 20%, we are all dead.

There wont be any war with Iran beyound this forum. The war is likely to cost Israel more in terms of oil import bills than any benefit of blowing up the nukes.
The reason why everyone is putting up with Iran is simply because they got the oil and global oil supply is tight. In the short to medium term, nothing can be done.

citanon
12 Jul 08,, 23:33
Iran should simply begin to cut its daily oil output by say 500,000 barrels. Just doing that would make oil prices go upto 170.

Ahh, of course! Iran, after all, has plenty of excess revenues to offset the losses.


Iran should also threaten to blow up oil fields in the region., They only have one chance to do so but they can sent insurgents in Iraq to do the job easily. If Iraq goes offline by even 20%, we are all dead.

Why, just look at the recent success of the special groups. This will be a walk in the park!


The war is likely to cost Israel more in terms of oil import bills than any benefit of blowing up the nukes.

Hmmm, let's see, 20% higher gas prices vs. 1 million dead Israelis. A no brainer for sure!



There wont be any war with Iran beyound this forum.

You are right, if Iran starts "defending" itself this way, the problem will solve itself. :)

astralis
13 Jul 08,, 15:54
how to defend iran?

overthrow the mullahs, institute a constitutional republic, close the nuclear program, dismantle the terrorist groups, give the US basing rights, profess a desire to be an ally.

US would then defend iran. :biggrin:

Swift Sword
13 Jul 08,, 16:41
How to defend Iran?

Take a cue from Beijing and Tel Aviv: hire the best lobbyists money can buy and choke the United States Congress with appeals to their greed, avarice and vanity.

There are 435 individual audiences on the Hill and with some of the cards Tehran holds they will almost certainly gain more than a few of them.

neyzen
13 Jul 08,, 17:50
I would abolish Iranian army to set militias after first attack wave done.
I would terrorize American civilian/military targets both in US and outside of US as a result of every killed Iranian civilians.
I would try to use every possible medium to explain the "justness" of my resistance.

Sameer
13 Jul 08,, 23:43
Ahh, of course! Iran, after all, has plenty of excess revenues to offset the losses.



Why, just look at the recent success of the special groups. This will be a walk in the park!



Hmmm, let's see, 20% higher gas prices vs. 1 million dead Israelis. A no brainer for sure!




You are right, if Iran starts "defending" itself this way, the problem will solve itself. :)


You must not know too much about the oil market. 20% higher only? You must be nuts to believe that oil prices would only increase by such a small margin. If they cut production by 500,000 bbl per day, they could offset part of the losses via higher prices, as you must surely know the ol prices are at contango right now.

Furthermore, the Iranian mullahs could care less about their own people, if they go down, they would not mind taking the rest of us with them and the best weapon they have is oil prices. Even their photoshopped missile test was enough to push prices by 6 bucks in one day.

There is no doubt that Iran with the help of its Shia insurgents could destabalize Iraq.

With regard to Israel and one million dead, beyound the everyday propaganda of CNN and the likes, there is actually little Israel can do which is indeed unfortunate. Perhaps when the bombing happens, you can come back here and post galore but it wont happen for the reasons i have mentioned. The world economy is too weak for that right now.

Sameer
14 Jul 08,, 00:01
Just one correction though with regard to the world economy. Come to think of it there may be a timeframe. If the world slips towards more and more slowdown, then there should be global oil demand destruction which would be priced in. This would be the best case scenario for an Israeli attack but right now we are not seeing much evidence of global oil demand destruction, just US oil demand destruction. Either way, nobody will be happy.

Regardless of what many may think, the Iranians plan to use oil because they got nothing else but oil. That is their best strategy. It will not work long term but thats the best they got. Iran could not give a damn about its own people, if suicide bombers can exist, the mullahs could also call for sacrifice of the population to defeat the evil Israelis and monster US.

astralis
14 Jul 08,, 01:42
neyzen,


I would terrorize American civilian/military targets both in US and outside of US as a result of every killed Iranian civilians.

apparently 9-11 didn't mean much to you. if there's one take-away from that, it is that once american civilians (not soldiers) are attacked, americans will do their best to make the opposing party disappear.

ozjohn39
14 Jul 08,, 02:30
Take a leaf out of General Giaps book, and send home a stack of flag drapped coffins.

55,000 in VN.

5,000 in Iraq.

2000 in Iran should do the trick.


John.

American Empire
14 Jul 08,, 03:04
Take a leaf out of General Giaps book, and send home a stack of flag drapped coffins.



The trick is to make the war LONG rather than COSTLY.

citanon
14 Jul 08,, 05:29
You must not know too much about the oil market. 20% higher only? You must be nuts to believe that oil prices would only increase by such a small margin. If they cut production by 500,000 bbl per day, they could offset part of the losses via higher prices, as you must surely know the ol prices are at contango right now.

Furthermore, the Iranian mullahs could care less about their own people, if they go down, they would not mind taking the rest of us with them and the best weapon they have is oil prices. Even their photoshopped missile test was enough to push prices by 6 bucks in one day.

There is no doubt that Iran with the help of its Shia insurgents could destabalize Iraq.

With regard to Israel and one million dead, beyound the everyday propaganda of CNN and the likes, there is actually little Israel can do which is indeed unfortunate. Perhaps when the bombing happens, you can come back here and post galore but it wont happen for the reasons i have mentioned. The world economy is too weak for that right now.

Sameer, your predictions regarding the oil market and the world economy is far too simplistic. World wide production today is on the order of 80 million barrels per day. A half million barrel decrease represents less than a 1% change in world wide oil supplies. Granted that could have a substantial effect on prices (see 20% estimate), but there are additional production capacity from strategic reserves held around the world to offset shocks.

Furthermore, since Iran imports most of its refined oil products, it will be getting a double dose of its own medicine via both loss of revenue and higher expenditures on refined oil purchases. That's before retaliatory action by its trade partners.

citanon
14 Jul 08,, 06:42
Sameer, your predictions regarding the oil market and the world economy is far too simplistic. World wide production today is on the order of 80 million barrels per day. A half million barrel decrease represents less than a 1% change in world wide oil supplies. Granted that could have a substantial effect on prices (see 20% estimate), but there are additional production capacity from strategic reserves held around the world to offset shocks.

Furthermore, since Iran imports most of its refined oil products, it will be getting a double dose of its own medicine via both loss of revenue and higher expenditures on refined oil purchases. That's before retaliatory action by its trade partners.

I've actually way overestimated the impact on prices from a 500,000 barrel a day cut. If a 1% change would give 20% increase in prices, the market would have taken advantage of that. It's likely to be far less.

Furthermore, the current US strategic petroleum reserve is over 700 million barrels, and there are over 500 million barrels in the Japanese reserve. At 500,000 barrels a day, that's approximately seven years worth of supplies. Meanwhile, Iran will be facing a loss of 12% on petroleum exports, plus additional losses of revenue due to the long term effects of cancellations of contract and perception as an unreliable trading partner, in addition to the losses in refined product exports, and possible retaliatory measures.

All this for an economy where oil supplies more than 60% of the government's revenue.

Johnny W
14 Jul 08,, 14:18
If I were Irans dicatator, and I wanted to keep my country safe from harm, I would give up my nuclear ambitions, open up to nuclear inspectors, agree to most of the Western demands and stop supporting Hezbollah and insurgents in Iraq.

Then I would seek to normalize relations with the US, and solicit outside help in upgrading my countries infrastructure and increase oil production and refinery capability. Within 10 years, my economy would be one of the strongest in the Middle East and military action from the US would no longer be a problem.

The best way to defend your nation in most cases is not to fight a war in it.

AchtungSpitFire
14 Jul 08,, 15:50
^^^^Sounds like a cycle back to a Shah type of regime. We're paying the price for overthrowing Mossadegh and that naturally developing democratic framework. Also if I recall correctly anglo-american Oil interests had a big part in the whole episode.

Heck, if I was a paranoid right wing mullah I'd most certainly accelerate the Nuclear program covertly. Just by the lesson Pakistan to their east has taught the world...Nuclear blackmail works.

Johnny W
14 Jul 08,, 18:02
^^^^Sounds like a cycle back to a Shah type of regime. We're paying the price for overthrowing Mossadegh and that naturally developing democratic framework. Also if I recall correctly anglo-american Oil interests had a big part in the whole episode.

Heck, if I was a paranoid right wing mullah I'd most certainly accelerate the Nuclear program covertly. Just by the lesson Pakistan to their east has taught the world...Nuclear blackmail works.


But I would be a nice guy dictator. :)

My only point was that it would be much easier for them to get along with the rest of the world than to be combative. If they had a Turkish style democracy, Iran would probably be one of the wealthier countries in the ME.

Irt to the overthrow, I think that was as much a Cold War issue as a oil issue. We were afraid that the Soviets would gain to much influence in the region.

Also, Mossadegh's support among shia clerics and the middle class was low due to his secular policies and the fear of moving closer to socialism. The US and UK may have supported the coup de tat, but in the end it was his own people that that ousted him.

gunnut
14 Jul 08,, 19:56
I would hold talks without pre-conditions with president Obama because he represent "hope" and "change" we can believe in.

Keep the talks going while continue with my nukular program...for peace, of course.

I will intermingle the talks with some sabre-rattling of threats to cut down oil production to drive up the price.

This way I can delay an American air assault on my nukular facilities, make more money from oil, and make out like roses for my willingness to negotiate and the ability to cajole the Americans to the table.

Sameer
14 Jul 08,, 20:50
Sameer, your predictions regarding the oil market and the world economy is far too simplistic. World wide production today is on the order of 80 million barrels per day. A half million barrel decrease represents less than a 1% change in world wide oil supplies. Granted that could have a substantial effect on prices (see 20% estimate), but there are additional production capacity from strategic reserves held around the world to offset shocks.

Furthermore, since Iran imports most of its refined oil products, it will be getting a double dose of its own medicine via both loss of revenue and higher expenditures on refined oil purchases. That's before retaliatory action by its trade partners.

I work in this industry. Global oil demand stands at the 86 million bbl a day range and the supply difference is quite tight which is why the prices have doubled. The futures curve is in contango because of expecttions of future oil supply constraints. Noone can predict oil prices, we just go long oil and short financials and quite frankly noone knows where it is going to beyound the fact that any supply disruption and worse, forget the half a million bbl, any expectation that oil will be used as a weapon will make oil prices go off on a tangent. Now i saw this since October, my seniors are going crazy over it and quite frankly there is no doubt in their mind either that any mid east tension would make prices skyrocket. Something to think about before making any oil price forecasts.

Iran has a demented leadership and their best weapon is oil. Guess what, they have been talking about this and threatening of doing this and that to oil supplies because they know that that this is their best weapon. It wont work in the long term, noone would dispute that but it would cost the entire world billions and hurt us all. Something you Yanks should think about before blowing up things left right and center and thinking that the world is that simplistic. Iranian leaders will blow up what they can and take their economy down for all they care if their power is threatened.

Sameer
14 Jul 08,, 20:57
http://perotcharts.com/images/energy/energy10.png

The oil market does not move because of strategic oil reserves because we all know that these are temporary in nature but the curve is in contango precisely because of expectations of tightening. Forecasts for OPEC oil spare capacity which is expected to increase to 4.5m iin 2010 is expected to fade to negligible levels in 2013. Do not assume that its just about the now when making 20% predictions. It is impossible to predict the price, only the direction and it will be up up up. If there is war, it wont be 500K, it will be more as the leadership goes coucou.

Sameer
14 Jul 08,, 21:12
International Energy Agency - Oil Market Report (http://omrpublic.iea.org/)

Notice in the charts how global oil demand was around 1M bbl a day above daily oil supply in 1st Q 08 with expectations of tight demand-supply gap continuing. Its not that simple as 20% = 500,000bbl a day equation, prices increase based on the future as well, not just the present. There is no doubt that prices would hit the roof although we do not know what that would be like if there was an attack and Iranian retaliation.

citanon
15 Jul 08,, 00:01
I work in this industry. Global oil demand stands at the 86 million bbl a day range and the supply difference is quite tight which is why the prices have doubled. The futures curve is in contango because of expecttions of future oil supply constraints. Noone can predict oil prices, we just go long oil and short financials and quite frankly noone knows where it is going to beyound the fact that any supply disruption and worse, forget the half a million bbl, any expectation that oil will be used as a weapon will make oil prices go off on a tangent. Now i saw this since October, my seniors are going crazy over it and quite frankly there is no doubt in their mind either that any mid east tension would make prices skyrocket. Something to think about before making any oil price forecasts.

Iran has a demented leadership and their best weapon is oil. Guess what, they have been talking about this and threatening of doing this and that to oil supplies because they know that that this is their best weapon. It wont work in the long term, noone would dispute that but it would cost the entire world billions and hurt us all. Something you Yanks should think about before blowing up things left right and center and thinking that the world is that simplistic. Iranian leaders will blow up what they can and take their economy down for all they care if their power is threatened.

Sameer,

I believe a better approach for Iran is actually stimulating oil price increases through hidden speculative moves via third parties while creating extra tension with actions such as their wargames. This way they benefit from the price increase, create economic pressure on the US, while not having to cut back on any production.

I suspect that this has been going on since last year, on the part of the Iranians, or, opportunistically, on the part of the Russians.

Do you know whether this is feasible for the Iranians or the Russians?

citanon
15 Jul 08,, 00:13
http://perotcharts.com/images/energy/energy10.png

The oil market does not move because of strategic oil reserves because we all know that these are temporary in nature but the curve is in contango precisely because of expectations of tightening. Forecasts for OPEC oil spare capacity which is expected to increase to 4.5m iin 2010 is expected to fade to negligible levels in 2013. Do not assume that its just about the now when making 20% predictions. It is impossible to predict the price, only the direction and it will be up up up. If there is war, it wont be 500K, it will be more as the leadership goes coucou.

Any Iranian cutback on production would also necessarily be short term, which is why the strategic reserves can come into play in this scenario: the market would judge the relative likelihood of reserve depletion versus supply resumption.

If there is a war, Iran will be aiming to stop all traffic through the Straits of Hormuz, which would be far more damaging. However, Israel may not care and the US may opt for short term pain versus long term Iranian influence. The trick here is that US doesn't want war right now, but Israel may be able to maneuver the US into it. This was being discussed in the other threads.

Sameer
15 Jul 08,, 02:19
Sameer,

I believe a better approach for Iran is actually stimulating oil price increases through hidden speculative moves via third parties while creating extra tension with actions such as their wargames. This way they benefit from the price increase, create economic pressure on the US, while not having to cut back on any production.

I suspect that this has been going on since last year, on the part of the Iranians, or, opportunistically, on the part of the Russians.

Do you know whether this is feasible for the Iranians or the Russians?

The market does not hold any hope on reserves, Remember when Bush talked about opening up the reserves, what we want to see quite frankly is news about supply, if there is news about supply comming online anytime soon ie over the next 4-5 years, traders will be net short.

With regard to Iranian strategy through third parties, hmm that could work if they could really hide it. Much of the speculation in the oil futures market is done by your pension fund, smaller companies seeking a hedge against higher inflationary expectations and current price volatility and hedge funds. Now granted hedge funds are barely regulated but right now all the Congress and Senators are looking at hedge funds so much that i doubt the Iranians could get away with it. Right now just that fear that there may be war is enough to please the Iranians who are milking money. I think that their best strategy for the now is to prevent the attack from taking place but make sure that the possibility of an attack remains alive. Supply is so tight, speaking of reserves, we care more if Petrobras ends workers' strike than the strategic oil reserves which can only last 3-6 months. Imagine if oil fields are put out of commission by the mullahs in Iraq and Iran for months, say 5-12 months. Even if they hit 10% of their intended targets they can cause havoc but of course they will loose in the end.

Sameer
15 Jul 08,, 02:47
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Inventory 2005 (http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html)

Here is the current inventory.

The market will price the war in terms of how much crude the region will loose or may loose, especially if oil fields are put offline in Iraq or Iran or if the strait is mined, prices would rise and rise and the strat oil reserve would not really be a factor unless the war is swift and ends without any supply disruption. The market does not assume the best in war cases and will not just assume that if Iran cuts production by x, the reserves of the US and other countries will add y to make up the diff. Supply is so constrained that the oil market is complex and trend stochastic.

Beyound oil, Iran holds the cards of hezbullah and of course Shia elements in Iraq, that should hurt the US. It wont and cannot defeat the US but it can cause lots of damage, much more than in Iraq. When Iraq was invaded, the oil futures market was nothing like it is today. Times have changed and index fund demand has skyrocket to equal to the demand from China. Speculators as you folks call it do not set the trend but can amplify the trend, it can be messy in any war situation.

Finally, I doubt very much that if their power is threated, the Mullahs will really look at the revenue math. Islamists have madrassah math, not real math.

citanon
15 Jul 08,, 05:10
With regard to Iranian strategy through third parties, hmm that could work if they could really hide it. Much of the speculation in the oil futures market is done by your pension fund, smaller companies seeking a hedge against higher inflationary expectations and current price volatility and hedge funds.

Interesting. How much ability is there to identity the parties involved in transactions in the oil market, and the origin of funds being used? Do government authorities track every transaction?

citanon
15 Jul 08,, 05:27
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Inventory 2005 (http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html)

Here is the current inventory.

The market will price the war in terms of how much crude the region will loose or may loose, especially if oil fields are put offline in Iraq or Iran or if the strait is mined, prices would rise and rise and the strat oil reserve would not really be a factor unless the war is swift and ends without any supply disruption. The market does not assume the best in war cases and will not just assume that if Iran cuts production by x, the reserves of the US and other countries will add y to make up the diff. Supply is so constrained that the oil market is complex and trend stochastic.

Beyound oil, Iran holds the cards of hezbullah and of course Shia elements in Iraq, that should hurt the US. It wont and cannot defeat the US but it can cause lots of damage, much more than in Iraq. When Iraq was invaded, the oil futures market was nothing like it is today. Times have changed and index fund demand has skyrocket to equal to the demand from China. Speculators as you folks call it do not set the trend but can amplify the trend, it can be messy in any war situation.

Finally, I doubt very much that if their power is threated, the Mullahs will really look at the revenue math. Islamists have madrassah math, not real math.

I was postulating the use of the Strategic Reserve as a counter to a purposeful reduction in Iranian oil output. I do not believe that the Strategic Reserve is sufficient to counter price increases in the case of "kinetic events".

Also, I believe Iranian influence over Iraqi Shiites is overblown. In recent month, the Mahdi Army and their associated "special groups" have been greatly weakened by government crackdowns. Though the Badr organization and many Shiite parties receive assistance from Iran, I doubt they would burn Iraq for the Mullahs' sake. Good old fashioned betrayal (as the Iranians would see it), would be the order of the day. "Gee thanks for your money and arms guys. Good luck with the war!" Any parties infiltrating from Iran would also be swiftly identified and neutralized by Iraqi and US forces. They might get a few, but they won't stop Iraqi production.

It's readily apparent that the economic and military consequences of a war with Iran is sufficient to deter US initiated military action at this junction. However, it's not clear at all whether this is sufficient deterrent from an Israeli POV. Once kinetic operations start, strikes against oil production and transportation in the region would only motivate the US to ramp up the intensity of the conflict. Further, activation of Hezbollah and Hamas could present a tempting 2nd opportunity at destroying Hezbollah power in Lebanon and overrunning Hamas in Gaza.

The only remaining deterrent against the intensification of US military action, would be the prospect of loss of Iranian oil production for an extended duration. However, since Iran derives so much of its revenue from oil, it would be motivated to ramp up production ASAP after cessation of hostilities.

In summary, while economic factors serve as a deterrent to the US, it is less effective against Israel, the most likely instigator of military action. While the possibility of strikes on regional oil production is a deterrent in peace time, it may intensify military action during an actual conflict.

The One
16 Jul 08,, 07:26
SOURCE:- NDTV.com: Prepare for attack on Iran: Bush to Israel (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080056900&ch=7/15/2008%2011:50:00%20AM)

Prepare for attack on Iran: Bush to Israel

Press Trust of India

Sunday, July 13, 2008 (London)

US President George W Bush has given Israel a go-ahead to begin preparations for a military attack on Iran, in case talks over the country's controversial nuclear programme fail to yield results, a media report has said.

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that he would back an Israeli plan to strike Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down, the Sunday Times said quoting a Pentagon official.

The US President has given Israel an ''amber light'' to start preparing for a possible offensive, the official told the Sunday Times.

''Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready,'' the official was quoted as saying to Sunday Times.

The US President's voice of support comes despite his military officials' opposition to an attack on Iran, given the risks of an aerial strike.

However, the US would not deploy American forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on its military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

Washington would also not give a ''green light'' to the attack without unquestionable proof that the Islamic Republic is involved in military preparations of its own, the report said.

Iran last week test launched a series of medium-range ballistic missiles it claimed were capable of striking Israel.

The tests prompted a threatening message from Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who said that the Jewish state would not hesitate from taking military action against Tehran.

Deltacamelately
16 Jul 08,, 13:22
Mods please merge this with the existing threads.

American Empire
16 Jul 08,, 20:03
I don't think Israel and Iran will get into a ground war. I don't think it is logistically possible for ethier of them.

kamikaze
16 Jul 08,, 20:50
I don't think Israel and Iran will get into a ground war. I don't think it is logistically possible for ethier of them.

yes it is.. its call hezbollah

123CathyLee
17 Jul 08,, 06:57
There's no chance that America could win a war against Iran. We're having trouble with poor radicals with AK-47's there's no way we could take a highly trained, disciplined army. And I would bet you any money that Russia would jump into that conflict. I just hope we never have to go to war with Iran, i'm sick of war.

S2
17 Jul 08,, 07:04
Go away, madam.

Deltacamelately
17 Jul 08,, 08:32
Go away, madam.
S-2,
That's the way. Always call a spade a spade.:));):P

S2
17 Jul 08,, 08:37
"That's the way. Always call a spade a spade.:biggrin:;):tongue:"

Major,

I only wish I'd known her name is Kyle. Evidently, "she" is a "he". Go figure.:confused:

Sameer
17 Jul 08,, 16:40
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNaIqaODpvrU&refer=home)

Iran and Afganistan

Traxus
17 Jul 08,, 20:31
But I would be a nice guy dictator. :)

My only point was that it would be much easier for them to get along with the rest of the world than to be combative. If they had a Turkish style democracy, Iran would probably be one of the wealthier countries in the ME.

Irt to the overthrow, I think that was as much a Cold War issue as a oil issue. We were afraid that the Soviets would gain to much influence in the region.

Also, Mossadegh's support among shia clerics and the middle class was low due to his secular policies and the fear of moving closer to socialism. The US and UK may have supported the coup de tat, but in the end it was his own people that that ousted him.

The US and UK didn't just support the coup, they orchestrated the whole thing from the ground up. Mossadegh was hugely popular, which was how the Shah got ousted in the first place. The only power Mossadegh had was popular support because of his rhetoric, which was enough to overcome the might of the Shah and his military. Without the CIA and MI6 Mossadegh would not have been overthrown, at least not on any sort of the same time frame (who knows what would have happened if the coup didn't occur).

citanon
18 Jul 08,, 16:57
Op-ed in today's New York Times. I'm not sure what to think about this. A preemptive nuclear strike just doesn't seem likely to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?pagewanted=all


July 18, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Using Bombs to Stave Off War
By BENNY MORRIS

Li-On, Israel

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.

The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.

But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).

Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Dreadnought
18 Jul 08,, 17:49
"That's the way. Always call a spade a spade.:biggrin:;):tongue:"

Major,

I only wish I'd known her name is Kyle. Evidently, "she" is a "he". Go figure.:confused:

S-2, Do you see just how bad some want to be here and post?:)) We must be doing pretty well if they are will to become transgendered in order to troll.:))

Dreadnought
18 Jul 08,, 17:51
There's no chance that America could win a war against Iran. We're having trouble with poor radicals with AK-47's there's no way we could take a highly trained, disciplined army. And I would bet you any money that Russia would jump into that conflict. I just hope we never have to go to war with Iran, i'm sick of war.

AKA Moron! Dont you have something to go and color?:rolleyes:

pulse_of_me
24 Jul 08,, 11:27
dont make the condition of the world gets worst, other people are all ready suffering in the third world, evreyone needs safety, and it will comes with tolerance and a pure diplomacy.

Johnny W
24 Jul 08,, 15:30
The US and UK didn't just support the coup, they orchestrated the whole thing from the ground up. Mossadegh was hugely popular, which was how the Shah got ousted in the first place. The only power Mossadegh had was popular support because of his rhetoric, which was enough to overcome the might of the Shah and his military. Without the CIA and MI6 Mossadegh would not have been overthrown, at least not on any sort of the same time frame (who knows what would have happened if the coup didn't occur).


Orchestrated? Perhaps they did, I am not sure. I have read a bit on the subject, but haven't studied it indepth. However, I do know this. The coup might not have happened without the CIA/MI6 involvement, but it definitely would not have happened without Iranians who were willing participants. We are certainly not blameless in the matter, but by the same token, we don't deserve all the blame.