Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War

[BigRedChief]

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.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

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.

Obama said, he wants pre 1967 borders.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Obama said, he wants pre 1967 borders.

Of course he does

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Donger

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

But its a pipe dream. & everyone knows it

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

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.

What makes you think this is even about a nuke rather than planned regime change since the late 1990's?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Obama said, he wants pre 1967 borders.

You should read Pat Buchanan on what Obama actually meant by that.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You should read Pat Buchanan on what Obama actually meant by that.

People actually follow Pat?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

People actually follow Pat?

Yeah, they're called traditional conservatives. Ya' know the Old Right.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

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?

I think there is a better way. The Iranians are the closest people to our way of life. They understand Democracy, they enjoy American TV and movies, amusement parks, roller coasters etc. Sure they are still pissed off that we supported a Dictator that tortured and imprisoned them for no reason.

But, they are potential allies. We all saw the people in the street. There is serious buyers remorse that the Mullahs are in power. We let them throw the mullahs out. We arm them, give them support in a guerilla war. See if they can throw the mullahs out without us having to put boots on the ground.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah, they're called traditional conservatives. Ya' know the Old Right.

are you still sticking to your story that christians and jews are welcome in iran?

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Obama said, he wants pre 1967 borders.

We don't know what he honestly feels about Israel and we damn sure won't know before the election.

[boogblaster]

Originally Posted by Donger

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

jc .. ya hand feed a deadly snake long enough ya gona get bit .....

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

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.

Bullshit! He is pandering. He's already given Israel bunker busters and planes. He's only told them to hold off until after the election so he doesn't lose his base. He knows 70% of the American people do not support a unilateral military attack on Iran. It's also a war crime. Something Nazis, fascists and communists do. Not America.

Iran is not a threat to America. It is not a conventional war threat to Israel either. Terrorism on Israeli targets in the world is who they attack.

[BucEyedPea]

Donger believes lies about Iran violating it's treaty obligations. The Soviets violated treaties routinely and we never started a war over it. It's not the answer.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I think there is a better way. The Iranians are the closest people to our way of life. They understand Democracy, they enjoy American TV and movies, amusement parks, roller coasters etc. Sure they are still pissed off that we supported a Dictator that tortured and imprisoned them for no reason.

But, they are potential allies. We all saw the people in the street. There is serious buyers remorse that the Mullahs are in power. We let them throw the mullahs out. We arm them, give them support in a guerilla war. See if they can throw the mullahs out without us having to put boots on the ground.

I'm all for regime change, supported by us, overtly or covertly. Better than open war.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Donger believes lies about Iran violating it's treaty obligations.

And BEP ignores the reality that Iran is in violation of NPT safeguards, which is why sanctions have been put in place.

How many times do I have to show you your ass on this subject?