Iran

[ocs_hopeful]

I have two questions for everybody. What road to you think the Iran situation is headed down? And if military confrontation is inveitable, than what role will the Marines play?

 

[irishmc]

wow, I don't think anyone but Iran knows where this is headed. right now the UN can't even agree on sanctions to impose, let alone any kind of military option. And imho no nation is anywhere NEAR ready to say military confrontation is inevitable. yes, the US has said "military options are still on the table", but that is to be expected, and in no way garuntees warfare.

now of course, the minute the world has some proof (or Iran simply admits) that they are working towards something other than a civilian nuclear program, everything changes. but seriously, way too premature to even consider what marines MIGHT do. just sit back and enjoy the political process.

 

[Schnugg]

 

[Brett327]

Whatever happens, the chances for an all out boots on the ground style operation are pretty slim. I would say Marine participation would likely be limited to support and air ops. If it goes to blows, one of our primary concerns will be to keep Hormuz open. Probably means a little SEAD, DCA and SSC among other things.

Brett

 

[raptor10]

Unchecked (like '39 Germany), Iran will acquire nuclear weapons with the possibility of launching a first strike against the US or Isreal (cause nobody likes us) or contributing to nuclear proliferation to "non state" parties, which is the more frightining og the two scenarios of unchecked Iranian ambition. However, if Iran continues to demonstrate its intent on developing its uranium enrichment research (and it looks like he does, when he broke the news to the people about thier accomplishment of uranium enrichment it wasn't to city planners, it was to military brass and religious clerics) then there will be some response eventually which will eventually be a military one.

Hopefully the lesson that we learn from a Iraq, is that in the middle east the people are comfortable with a tyrant (not an evil dictator like saddam hussein, but the classical greek and roman tyrant who rules with an iron fist to bring stability and prosperity). We need to be conservative with our laws and the grip that the government has on the people, while liberal with the economic policies that we put in place. You win hearts and minds by satisfying basic needs, and money solves alot of those problems, while also encouraging political discourse. Tomahawks and walmarts can win us the war.

As for what would Marines do... thier part. I dont think your gonna get a play by play of the Marine FM-xx, but everyone I've talked to (read 1/C, 2/C, 3/C, midshipmen (19-22 year olds)) believes that the flexibility of the marine corps will play a big role in destroying/capturing the military capability of iran, illiminating the political leadership, then leaving the army as an occupying force to build up the military and control the nation, install a tyrant and use force to carry out his laws, and then to build up the econmomic base of the nation by bringing in big business, American businesses, which can establish better ties with the people than a guy with a rifle can.

Reconstruction worked in our own country (civil war), Germany, and Japan. It can be done, and America needs to relearn this lesson if she wants to keep her hegemony.

hey but look up there^ the are fleet I'm just a college boi

The sad thing is if Iran gets stupid, thats good for the USofA

 

[luckechance]

"The sad thing is if Iran gets stupid, thats good for the USofA" - Raptor 10

Sorry pal, going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe you should go experience war first hand before you go spouting off that its such a great thing. IMO any millitary confrontation with Iran is going to be ugly. I don't think a 'limited airstrike' is much of an option because Iranian retaliation would tend to make things less "limited" if you will. I have full confidence in our forces being able to carry the day, but I'd be much happier if the politicians can find a way to prevent the Iranians from getting nukes with out having to go to war.

"Reconstruction worked in our own country (civil war), Germany, and Japan. It can be done, and America needs to relearn this lesson if she wants to keep her hegemony." - Raptor10

In all of those examples, the defeated nation was left in ruins. 90 plus percent of the land area in Japan's city's were ashes, it took germany several years after the war to feed itself and heat it's homes. Ever heard of the 'March to the Sea' by Sherman? If you're willing to do that to Iran live on CNN, than maybe we can rebuild that way, but I'd be willing to bet it won't happen. (not that I wouldn't support it)

"The only thing worse than a battle won is a battle lost"

 

[Falker]

My buddy sent this to me a week ago...

 

[Brett327]

"The sad thing is if Iran gets stupid, thats good for the USofA" - Raptor 10

Sorry pal, going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe you should go experience war first hand before you go spouting off that its such a great thing. IMO any millitary confrontation with Iran is going to be ugly. I don't think a 'limited airstrike' is much of an option because Iranian retaliation would tend to make things less "limited" if you will. I have full confidence in our forces being able to carry the day, but I'd be much happier if the politicians can find a way to prevent the Iranians from getting nukes with out having to go to war.

"Reconstruction worked in our own country (civil war), Germany, and Japan. It can be done, and America needs to relearn this lesson if she wants to keep her hegemony." - Raptor10

In all of those examples, the defeated nation was left in ruins. 90 plus percent of the land area in Japan's city's were ashes, it took germany several years after the war to feed itself and heat it's homes. Ever heard of the 'March to the Sea' by Sherman? If you're willing to do that to Iran live on CNN, than maybe we can rebuild that way, but I'd be willing to bet it won't happen. (not that I wouldn't support it)

"The only thing worse than a battle won is a battle lost"

Concur. Any confrontation w/ Iran will be ugly at best. We would be insane to think in terms of occupying Iran. My sources tell me that, contrary to what is commonly discussed by some of the talking heads, the best/least chaotic possibility for reform will come from the conservative wing of the Iranian government and not the left wing opposition groups. There is apparently a broad collection of different views in the conservative coalition and not all of them are behind Ahmadinejad. We need to be tough with Iran, but all out conflict is a lose/lose proposition.

Brett

 

[raptor10]

"The sad thing is if Iran gets stupid, thats good for the USofA" - Raptor 10

Sorry pal, going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe you should go experience war first hand before you go spouting off that its such a great thing. IMO any millitary confrontation with Iran is going to be ugly. I don't think a 'limited airstrike' is much of an option because Iranian retaliation would tend to make things less "limited" if you will. I have full confidence in our forces being able to carry the day, but I'd be much happier if the politicians can find a way to prevent the Iranians from getting nukes with out having to go to war.

"Reconstruction worked in our own country (civil war), Germany, and Japan. It can be done, and America needs to relearn this lesson if she wants to keep her hegemony." - Raptor10

In all of those examples, the defeated nation was left in ruins. 90 plus percent of the land area in Japan's city's were ashes, it took germany several years after the war to feed itself and heat it's homes. Ever heard of the 'March to the Sea' by Sherman? If you're willing to do that to Iran live on CNN, than maybe we can rebuild that way, but I'd be willing to bet it won't happen. (not that I wouldn't support it)

"The only thing worse than a battle won is a battle lost"

I wholeheartedly agree that war is a horrible vile, evil beast, which is why 90% of the time I dont believe that a pre-emptive strategy is a good idea.

Right now, sadly the American government does not have the moral credibility to launch an offensive off of her word alone. War, being another shade of politics, is about appearances, not just on the battlefield but in the international arena in which it is fought.

We fight wars to make us stronger, both in our own personal security and in the relationships that we have with other nations, who will be able to sleep confidently at night that American resolve will accomplish the mission, and that American power will only be used when absolutly neccessary, so that they can rest assured that justice and not imperialsm is being served.

The second guessers, and partisans, in our own nation, will tear away any victory based on pre-emption, and the only way to win that war will be to only attack when you see Iranian rockets fueled and ready to lift towards targets the world cares about.

So yes, the USofA needs another war like the Civil War, like WWII, like Desert Storm, one where the people around the world can point and say that evil is there, RIGHT there and we acted to stop it.

Can you point at the examples of the destruction and reconstruction and tell me that nothing good came of them? That the nation is not stronger, because of them, that the steel of the sword was not tempered by the fire of war?

I know nothing of war except that I have read that it is a "necessary evil" But I have read of men that do know a little about war and thier opinions on it

"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."

- Winston Churchill

But then again:

"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."
- Winston Churchill

But maybe A4's is right and we are all a little softer...

 

[zab1001]

but everyone I've talked to (read 1/C, 2/C, 3/C, midshipmen (19-22 year olds)) believes...

How to Discredit Your Own Post with one sentence. Come on man, by now you should know better.

 

[raptor10]

60% of the time it works, all of the time...

 

[TXHusker05]

Any operation with Iran seems like it would revolve around special ops and maybe some air strikes on specific military objectives (or any nuclear facilities). Iran is not a country we want to screw around with. That being said, we have our hands full with two operations that nobody really supports now anyway, I don't see anyway we could get support for a military operation in Iran. If we went to war there, we'd probably have another civil war here.

I still think a few Special Forces detachments could do some good there, try and get some more intel before we proceed. Reforming the Iranian government would never really happen. I say we let the UN handle this one and stay back as far as possible.

On a side note, if we did attack Iran... our middle east tic tac toe game would be a winner. Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan for the win

 

[raptor10]

Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq

So who were we playing against? France, Russia, China, come on throw me a friggin bone here!

 

[DanMa1156]

So yes, the USofA needs another war...

I see what you're trying to say - but I think what everyone is agreeing on is that war is not good and, although we should be willing to fight one, we should not seek it out.

 

[TXHusker05]

Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq

So who were we playing against? France, Russia, China, come on throw me a friggin bone here!

We are always playing against France