ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Nat'l Security Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=263613)

BigRedChief 09-13-2012 04:59 PM

Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War
 
http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay not stop the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation including a land occupation more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike by the Israelis or U.S. on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

LiveSteam 09-13-2012 05:06 PM

Their is another way.

qabbaan 09-13-2012 05:06 PM

"coordinated by the nonpartisan Iran Project, a private group funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropy that promotes peace and democracy"

Sounds unbiased to me!

"It is based on publicly available documents, including unclassified intelligence reports."

So, it's based on nothing the decision makers would use to actually make the decision.

BigRedChief 09-13-2012 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qabbaan (Post 8907460)
"coordinated by the nonpartisan Iran Project, a private group funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropy that promotes peace and democracy"

Sounds unbiased to me!

"It is based on publicly available documents, including unclassified intelligence reports."

So, it's based on nothing the decision makers would use to actually make the decision.

Dude, they dont get to use classified documents and then publish it publically.

Did you even look at the list of people that wrote the report? Well respected Generals, diplomats. This wasnt an MSNBC project.

qabbaan 09-13-2012 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8907479)
Dude, they dont get to use classified documents and then publish it publically.

Did you even look at the list of people that wrote the report? Well respected Generals, diplomats. This wasnt an MSNBC project.

Right, so they have no current information on the standoff the nuclear program or any of the intelligence information the decision makers will use.

Glad these gents could stop by and let us know that an air strike against another country may result in further hostilities.

Now, isn't this the part where you do some kind of special pleading?

ChiefsCountry 09-13-2012 05:29 PM

File this under the no shit category.

Donger 09-13-2012 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8907427)
http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay not stop the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation including a land occupation more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike by the Israelis or U.S. on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

Are you in favor of a US military strike to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed, if it comes to that? In other words, sanctions and diplomacy fail?

ForeverChiefs58 09-13-2012 05:30 PM

I think that is why many want us to hit them hard. So they cant get back up.

Tough to wipe out so many lives, but if it would save American lives and get rid of the largest exporter of terrorism it is necessary.

Chocolate Hog 09-13-2012 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger (Post 8907529)
Are you in favor of a US military strike to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed, if it comes to that? In other words, sanctions and diplomacy fail?

We live in a world where you don't have to kill to get your way.

ForeverChiefs58 09-13-2012 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay (Post 8907537)
We live in a world where you don't have to kill to get your way.

yet you might have to in order to save lives.

Chocolate Hog 09-13-2012 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58 (Post 8907545)
yet you might have to in order to save lives.

Turn off the video games.

HonestChieffan 09-13-2012 05:36 PM

The administration will do anything to distance itself at this point. Obama clearly supports the Islamists and will do anything to stay away from our only ally in the ME.

LiveSteam 09-13-2012 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay (Post 8907547)
Turn off the video games.

Is that what Im watching go down in the Middle East right now ?

HonestChieffan 09-13-2012 05:40 PM

Is there minor war?

Donger 09-13-2012 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay (Post 8907537)
We live in a world where you don't have to kill to get your way.

Indeed. That's why I hope that diplomacy and sanctions will make Iran live up to its treaty obligations.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.