The case against Iran is being established
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
But my point is once you initiate war with a country, as opposed to a group of people, your target has expanded abundantly. Infastructure and military bases will be targeted, not just soldiers. You will see bombs falling from the sky in great numbers, in places where there may not be a single "enemy".
Does Hezbollah not have a fully functioning militia/military? Does Hezbollah not for all intents and purposes control southern Lebanon? Does Hezbollah not have bases, ammunition dumps, command and control structures, communications facilities, etc?
Were not great numbers of bombs falling from the sky on Lebanon? Was not the whole country’s infrastructure targeted not just Hezbollah’s troops and military infrastructure?
Has Israel not for the last decade, at least, been considered to have one of the worlds most advanced and powerful militaries?
The comparison of Israel vs. Hezbollah and the US vs. Iran fits perfectly. Not just because the US funds and supplies Israel’s military and Iran Hezbollah’s, but from a size and scope comparison as well. If anything your current statement adds further strength to my position because war with Iran would be a much more difficult task than one with Hezbollah.
If Israel can not defeat Hezbollah, how would the US defeat Iran? Especially given that Israel’s military wasn’t stretched as thin as the US’ and that the US can’t even beat Iraq (fighting with the old underdog guerrilla strategy). If Iran were to adopt the strategy of Hezbollah (which it is easy to assume they would) then there is little hope for a US victory.
Were not great numbers of bombs falling from the sky on Lebanon? Was not the whole country’s infrastructure targeted not just Hezbollah’s troops and military infrastructure?
Has Israel not for the last decade, at least, been considered to have one of the worlds most advanced and powerful militaries?
The comparison of Israel vs. Hezbollah and the US vs. Iran fits perfectly. Not just because the US funds and supplies Israel’s military and Iran Hezbollah’s, but from a size and scope comparison as well. If anything your current statement adds further strength to my position because war with Iran would be a much more difficult task than one with Hezbollah.
If Israel can not defeat Hezbollah, how would the US defeat Iran? Especially given that Israel’s military wasn’t stretched as thin as the US’ and that the US can’t even beat Iraq (fighting with the old underdog guerrilla strategy). If Iran were to adopt the strategy of Hezbollah (which it is easy to assume they would) then there is little hope for a US victory.
i would look at the conflicts in tandem instead of separately. there is no doubt in my mind that Israel could destroy lebanon. There is no doubt in mind that the US could simply destroy Iran...but at what cost? all of the muslim world would converge on israel!!! this isnt checkers this is chess. just because a king can kill a pawn doesnt mean you will win the game. israel is hesitant to annihilate hezbollah because of the unknown backlash that would result, the same with US and Iran. Israel already knowds its not wanted in the middle east, thats not a question, but we are looking at timing and political consequence, risk vs reward, and slowly killing people and accepting your own casualties (back and forth between israel and palestinians) looks like a better option now than launching global jihad.
this is nonsense about the US not being able to beat Iraq. There is a difference between "beating" them and accomplishing dubya's one man mission. We are there trying to install our own brand of government, which isnt working, this isnt the same as "beating" them, we are more than effective at bringin pain and death and suffering.
this is nonsense about the US not being able to beat Iraq. There is a difference between "beating" them and accomplishing dubya's one man mission. We are there trying to install our own brand of government, which isnt working, this isnt the same as "beating" them, we are more than effective at bringin pain and death and suffering.
Sinking a ship opposed to killing 2 million Japanese people and infesting their land with toxic aftermath that STILL effects people to this day=not the same thing.
BTW, there are "conspiracy's" that the Japanese never dropped bombs in Pearl Harbor, that it was actually the US. Is it 100% true? How knows. But, in the light of everything, you should read up on the Bay Of Pigs. Or, how the US wanted to provoke Cuba into a war 40 years ago.
Things aint always what they seem, kiddo. Open your eyes.
BTW, there are "conspiracy's" that the Japanese never dropped bombs in Pearl Harbor, that it was actually the US. Is it 100% true? How knows. But, in the light of everything, you should read up on the Bay Of Pigs. Or, how the US wanted to provoke Cuba into a war 40 years ago.
Things aint always what they seem, kiddo. Open your eyes.
DFresh77 said:
that's not farsi/arabic LOL..and since when do Iran uses 81mm rockets?
this is farsi/arabic
Russian Rocket used by Iran..
persian serial numbers?
JESUS THE MEXICAN LAWNMOWER CHRIST...when will people understand that Iran and other arabic countries don't use NUMBERS..
fucking idiots!!!
this is farsi/arabic
Russian Rocket used by Iran..
persian serial numbers?
JESUS THE MEXICAN LAWNMOWER CHRIST...when will people understand that Iran and other arabic countries don't use NUMBERS..
fucking idiots!!!
@ nhojsmith
Total destruction of a country runs contrary to the objectives of conventional war.
The objective of war is not to destroy the enemy but to gain a strategic result.
Israel or the U.S. could drop nukes tactical or otherwise on a country and obliterate it, but that isn’t a victorious war.
Body count wasn't a good idea in Vietnam. It still isn't. Destruction of the enemy is never more than the means to a strategic end, not an end in itself.
Israel isn’t hesitant to destroy Hezbollah; it was their objective in waging that war. They failed. They lost. They were embarrassed on an international and domestic political scale. Annihilating Hezbollah does not mean annihilating Lebanon nor does the U.S. wiping out Iran’s Islamist government necessarily constitute the annihilation of Iran.
The strategic objective may in some cases to destroy the enemy's army and occupy his capital, but more likely, what we really want to do is something else. Keep enemy armor from massing. Halt an invasion. Take away the enemy's ability to command and control his forces, etc.
It was this type of goal that Israel held in the Hezbollah war. Not necessarily to invade and occupy or destroy all of Lebanon. Rather just to incapacitate or totally destroy Hezbollah. They couldn’t even halt the rocket strikes let alone diminish the command and control of forces. It has been a goal of the neo-conservative movement and the Israeli government to wipe out Hezbollah for years now. It is public; they don’t deny it. And when they tried at it, they failed. They got Syria out of Lebanon and they figured that was their opportunity to take out the weakened Hezbollah and they couldn’t. Imagine if they would have tried while Syrian troops were in there!
Take World War II, for example, our real objective was not destroying Germany and Japan. In fact, as soon as the war was over, we turned our energies to helping them rebuild. Our goal was to stop their aggression, defend their victims, and restore order.
There was a similar attempt made at Iraq. The point was to remove sadam, the bathists, and eliminate the fighting ability of those who ran counter to US objectives. The point was to rebuild and create a model middle eastern society to serve not only as an example to others but as a template for further attacks.
The US’s inability to even provide for the most basic of infrastructural surfaces is enough to deem the Iraq war a failure all together. The successful guerrilla war waged on US forces just ices the cake. Once the “Tet Offensive” type event takes place (the one McCain is publicly worrying about) it will be the naked girl jumping from the cake telling everyone it’s over.
Total destruction of a country runs contrary to the objectives of conventional war.
The objective of war is not to destroy the enemy but to gain a strategic result.
Israel or the U.S. could drop nukes tactical or otherwise on a country and obliterate it, but that isn’t a victorious war.
Body count wasn't a good idea in Vietnam. It still isn't. Destruction of the enemy is never more than the means to a strategic end, not an end in itself.
Israel isn’t hesitant to destroy Hezbollah; it was their objective in waging that war. They failed. They lost. They were embarrassed on an international and domestic political scale. Annihilating Hezbollah does not mean annihilating Lebanon nor does the U.S. wiping out Iran’s Islamist government necessarily constitute the annihilation of Iran.
The strategic objective may in some cases to destroy the enemy's army and occupy his capital, but more likely, what we really want to do is something else. Keep enemy armor from massing. Halt an invasion. Take away the enemy's ability to command and control his forces, etc.
It was this type of goal that Israel held in the Hezbollah war. Not necessarily to invade and occupy or destroy all of Lebanon. Rather just to incapacitate or totally destroy Hezbollah. They couldn’t even halt the rocket strikes let alone diminish the command and control of forces. It has been a goal of the neo-conservative movement and the Israeli government to wipe out Hezbollah for years now. It is public; they don’t deny it. And when they tried at it, they failed. They got Syria out of Lebanon and they figured that was their opportunity to take out the weakened Hezbollah and they couldn’t. Imagine if they would have tried while Syrian troops were in there!
Take World War II, for example, our real objective was not destroying Germany and Japan. In fact, as soon as the war was over, we turned our energies to helping them rebuild. Our goal was to stop their aggression, defend their victims, and restore order.
There was a similar attempt made at Iraq. The point was to remove sadam, the bathists, and eliminate the fighting ability of those who ran counter to US objectives. The point was to rebuild and create a model middle eastern society to serve not only as an example to others but as a template for further attacks.
The US’s inability to even provide for the most basic of infrastructural surfaces is enough to deem the Iraq war a failure all together. The successful guerrilla war waged on US forces just ices the cake. Once the “Tet Offensive” type event takes place (the one McCain is publicly worrying about) it will be the naked girl jumping from the cake telling everyone it’s over.
i pretty much agree with you on all points, my problem with your other post appears to be because of semantics and the language "defeating" and "beating" etc. but i see where youre coming from now.
if we cannot achieve our stratigc objectives, do you think the US or Israel will eventually be content with simply destroying the enemy? I personally do. and that was the point of my post. Since israel couldnt get rid of hezbollah, i dont put it past them to resort to destruction. I feel like tactical nukes will be used in the very near future, and israel can piggback on the iran conflict or the viceversa.
if we cannot achieve our stratigc objectives, do you think the US or Israel will eventually be content with simply destroying the enemy? I personally do. and that was the point of my post. Since israel couldnt get rid of hezbollah, i dont put it past them to resort to destruction. I feel like tactical nukes will be used in the very near future, and israel can piggback on the iran conflict or the viceversa.
There are points at which the U.S. and Israel’s intents and objectives for the Middle East diverge. But despite this they are inexorably tied to one and other. The U.S. will continue to insure that Israel continues to exist. And Israel can only go so far without U.S. approval of their actions towards achieving their objectives.
The U.S. is more interested in reshaping the Middle East. Keeping the people in place is vital. Their labor is a necessity; nearly as much as their natural resources and strategic position. Conversely Israel is more concerned with its own “security” as well as expanding its area and taking as much land away from surrounding nation-states as possible, the lives of the Palestinians and other non-zionist middle easterners are expendable in the least.
Israel’s nuclear program, and what little is publicly known of it, is mostly a deterrent. Basically to keep themselves from being totally over run and wiped out without other countries taking the risk of having nukes deployed against them. The U.S. on the other hand is very interested in deploying tactical nukes in combat and it has been another goal of the neo-conservative movement to do so. If open conflict with Iran does take place it is extremely likely we will see the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Though in the grand scheme and against a Hezbollah like strategy I would personally question their effectiveness other than using them just for the sake of using them.
The U.S. is more interested in reshaping the Middle East. Keeping the people in place is vital. Their labor is a necessity; nearly as much as their natural resources and strategic position. Conversely Israel is more concerned with its own “security” as well as expanding its area and taking as much land away from surrounding nation-states as possible, the lives of the Palestinians and other non-zionist middle easterners are expendable in the least.
Israel’s nuclear program, and what little is publicly known of it, is mostly a deterrent. Basically to keep themselves from being totally over run and wiped out without other countries taking the risk of having nukes deployed against them. The U.S. on the other hand is very interested in deploying tactical nukes in combat and it has been another goal of the neo-conservative movement to do so. If open conflict with Iran does take place it is extremely likely we will see the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Though in the grand scheme and against a Hezbollah like strategy I would personally question their effectiveness other than using them just for the sake of using them.
you definitely got some great points and i my personal views are still in agreement with most of what you say. that being said, what is the best recourse for the US/Israel alliance in response to the "threat" (even if you dont believe it) from iran, because as you put, we are trying to maintain a secure israel while simultaneousy causing disruption in middle east autonomy and pushing our own agenda.... so assume iran is getting closer to nukes which would undoubtedly threaten the security of israel....