Obama piles more military pressure on Iran - conspicuously

Iran 11-07-11 7/11

call me crazy... is this a new recording or just a new upload?!

I wouldn't think it would be necessary to engage Iran in a ground war. All you need to do is destroy its offensive capability. This includes its air force, its Navy, and its nuclear capability. Does anyone here think the US cannot "own the sky" within 24 hours of an attack? After that it's a matter of plinking the targets from the air.

Originally posted by schuyler
I wouldn't think it would be necessary to engage Iran in a ground war. All you need to do is destroy its offensive capability. This includes its air force, its Navy, and its nuclear capability. Does anyone here think the US cannot "own the sky" within 24 hours of an attack? After that it's a matter of plinking the targets from the air.

Wasn't this the same type of thinking that was applied to Iraq and Afghanistan (sans nukes) ? Boots on the ground would be inevitable if history tells us anything.

brill

reply to post by brill


@ the question about Congress
Yes only Congress can officially declare war. The President is the Commander in Chief of our military and can send them where ever. The war powers act came about after the Vietnam war to make sure we did not get into an undeclared war, but we see how well that turns out.

If it came to open hostilities I don't foresee a ground invasion. The goal would be destruction or a very large setback of their nuclear program. They have sites spread throughout the country, and a few of those areas are under mountains. I don't think we would be able to penetrate some of these sites with our J-SOW's or GBU-28.

I don't think the aim would be regime change either, however once hostilities broke out I can see us supporting the opposition parties within Iran who would want to overthrow the government.

In the end though I don't see any of this happening. I don't think Obama has the ability to order a military action like that. I am not trying to knock him, but based on his actions and performance to date I just cant see him doing it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If it came to open hostilities I don't foresee a ground invasion. The goal would be destruction or a very large setback of their nuclear program. They have sites spread throughout the country, and a few of those areas are under mountains. I don't think we would be able to penetrate some of these sites with our J-SOW's or GBU-28.

Are those the often referred to "bunker busters" or something completely different?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I don't think the aim would be regime change either, however once hostilities broke out I can see us supporting the opposition parties within Iran who would want to overthrow the government.

Agreed, I think we saw early signs of this with the failed election revolt in 2009.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
In the end though I don't see any of this happening. I don't think Obama has the ability to order a military action like that. I am not trying to knock him, but based on his actions and performance to date I just cant see him doing it.

Agree again, Obama won't do it barring some major development. He has to keep that Nobel peace prize untarnished

brill

Not saying it has anything to do with it, but a friend of mine recently did mention that she was given a whole plethora of vaccinations last week, without being previously scheduled.

reply to post by brill


Yup they are both considered bunker buster bombs. The GBU from what I have seen (Im not military so I might be behind the curve) is capable of deep penetration.

Bunker Buster

Originally posted by brill

Originally posted by schuyler
I wouldn't think it would be necessary to engage Iran in a ground war. All you need to do is destroy its offensive capability. This includes its air force, its Navy, and its nuclear capability. Does anyone here think the US cannot "own the sky" within 24 hours of an attack? After that it's a matter of plinking the targets from the air.

Wasn't this the same type of thinking that was applied to Iraq and Afghanistan (sans nukes) ? Boots on the ground would be inevitable if history tells us anything.

No, it wasn't. In both cases we intended to go in on the ground from the very start. In both cases we intended to remove the prevailing government from power completely. I'm suggesting that if you were not intent on regime change, a physical invasion would not be necessary.

reply to post by minkey53


US is not in any position to attack Iran.

It is a fail, fail in every scenario.

An occupation is fail, Iranians bitterly hate USA, and would fight till the last man standing.

A bombardment would fail and would cause thousands of American soldiers to get slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the insurgents need is some stingers to take down them dirty helicopters.

(Covert operations have already failed :@@

Iran is in a perfect position, US checkmate.

US is just trying to scare Iran, that is also a fail.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by minkey53

 

US is not in any position to attack Iran.

It is a fail, fail in every scenario.

An occupation is fail, Iranians bitterly hate USA, and would fight till the last man standing.

A bombardment would fail and would cause thousands of American soldiers to get slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the insurgents need is some stingers to take down them dirty helicopters.

(Covert operations have already failed :@@

Iran is in a perfect position, US checkmate.

US is just trying to scare Iran, that is also a fail.

i agree with a lot of what you say, and i have read you're threads about iranian gamble etc...

but wouldnt a war with iran boost the USA economy and create more jobs?

i hear the USA is losing +150k jobs a month... like world war 1 and 2... same thing...

of course there must be a false flag 1st...

double post

reply to post by RizeorDie


We are gaining 150k jobs a month, not loosing.

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

I don't believe we have any justifiable reason to attack Iran at the moment. If they were to try and launch a nuke or anything, I believe we have the technology to stop it and if we didn't then I believe we didn't care enough. But if you attack them without a real reason then you might upset those who don't wish to go to war and have to account for them turning on you. Which is why, if we have no real reason, going to war will destroy us. We'll have people turning on us from the inside, which I would consider myself a part of. And a lot of others actually. We need to pull back troops and set up a nice defense network since it would raise moral with having families back together while at the same time, showing that if any country were to attack, that we would be well within our rights to fight back and demolish them without provoking them as we do now.

If the US / Israel had no intention of attacking Iran or if they couldn't "afford to pay" for it, why are there so many ships off the Iranian Coastline?

Why are there French, UK and Israel subs / boats there too?

It would be a huge waste of money if the was no intention!

I wouldn't park my car outside a Walmart hundreds of miles away from my home and sit there for months on end if I had no intention of going inside?

Come on, it's just a matter of time!

People say "we don't have the money to attack iran"
Yes we do, and if we're in debt, whose going to make us pay?
Don't say china, cause china isn't going to literally going to waltz over and make us pay, we can go to war over this debt if we felt it was an unjustified debt, and who would really challenge us?

IF the USA fail, so would other countries, then eventually China's economy would fall.

Obama is in India for the reason that India is the only country in Asia that currently does not contain US Forces bases and a proposed Oil line from Turkmenistan/Azerbaijan. Yemen, funnily enough is the other country in the Mid East along with Jordan / Syria / Lebanon. Yemen would be a critical acquisition because of the Suez Strait giving access to the Mediterranean sea and forces on the other 3 above.

Georgia allowed US / NATO deployments recently.

Hillary Clinton (US Secretary of State) currently in Australia holding talks. About what?

After the recent military cutbacks, the British Navy sent a stealthy submarine in support (as it was the only thing they had left), that immediately ran aground.

Seriously folks, this could be quite alarming.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by minkey53

 

US is not in any position to attack Iran.

It is a fail, fail in every scenario.

An occupation is fail, Iranians bitterly hate USA, and would fight till the last man standing.

A bombardment would fail and would cause thousands of American soldiers to get slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the insurgents need is some stingers to take down them dirty helicopters.

(Covert operations have already failed :@@

Iran is in a perfect position, US checkmate.

US is just trying to scare Iran, that is also a fail.

The scary version is that the only scenario which isn't a fail is a fukll fledged nuclear strike on Tehran.

Of course, it will only suceed if Iran really DOESNT have its own nuclear bomb yet, something that appears to be questionable.

At a special White House security consultation last week, Obama said it was time to plant America's military option against the Iranian nuclear threat visibly and tangibly under the noses of Iran'

yeah and if Obama said that, then my name is Andrew Jackson...

debka com huh ? they really have no idea of this current president and have lost credibility imo... whoever they are.

This is just posturing it isn’t meant to provoke Iran and it doesn’t mean that a US strike is imminent. Talks on Iran's nuclear program are coming up and the US is trying to make the military threat more "real" as opposed to some vague threat directed only at Iran's nuclear facilities.