IndependntLogic
Senior Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 2,997
- 399
- 48
7 Aug 2012
Mitt Romney is talking tough talk about stopping Iran and taking military action if necessary. Why? Obama has proved to be 10 times better on foreign policy and defense than any president since George HW Bush and this was an area the GOP used to dominate. However, since Libya and Osama bin Laden, polls show that when Americans are asked Who would you rather have in charge during a war? Independents overwhelmingly say Obama. If nothing else, Libya has been percieved as a victory in showing the American Public something they haven't seen in the Middle East since Bush 41: an exit strategy.
But this talk of attacking Iran is sheer lunacy that preys on the ignorance of Americans in regards to the military, geo-political and economic catastrophe such action would cause.
1 Military. Irans military would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. They have a half million troops plus close to two million more in reserve. Additionally, Iraqs military was depleted to almost non-existence by a decade of sanctions, when America walked through them like they werent even there. This would not be the case with Iran. We also would not be able to just knock out their radar, SAMs etc with drones and airstrikes and then attack on the ground like we did with Iraq.
Iran is among the richest countries in the region and certainly among the best equipped, militarily. They have American fighter jets (including F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, the planes featured in the movie "Top Gun") as well as their own more modern jets, and SAMs that are MUCH more sophisticated than Iraqs were.
Attacking by the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman would also result in terrible losses because the Persians have a modern navy with destroyers, frigates, Russian Kilo Class submarines etc Is their military better than ours? No way. But we lost thousands of troops to primitive IEDs in a counter insurgency. The Iranian military is not armed with primitive weapons and they have more supplies and ammunition than they will need to fight for years, if attacked.
2 Geo-Political and Logistical Considerations. If all that werent enough, the politics of the region would be immediately and permanently turned against us. After the lies and political bullying that preceded Iraq, there is no way the USA would get UN resolution or support. This means all the cost and casualties would be ours alone. Turkey would not let us use their bases as they did for Iraq. Now that we have installed a Shia government in Iraq, they wouldnt let us use their bases either. Allowing us to do so would renew the spirit and efforts of the Iraqi insurgents and their government doesn't need us anymore.
The proximity to Pakistan would put the small majority who favor America in danger of losing control of their government if we allowed our warships to engage in battles directly off their shores. If any Paki casualties occurred, we could indeed be opposed to a country that really does have WMDs nukes.
The Shia and Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other countries would surely assist the Persians covertly. Worst of all, both China and Russia have strong interest in and ties to Iran. We could easily be faced with the proposition of a showdown with one or both, either militarily or at least, economically.
The Chinese could then leverage our debt to them while the Russians would be all too happy to supply all the sophisticated technology that oil will buy. The Syrians (the third component of the Shia Axis created by the installation of the Bush-picked government in Iraq), would engage in the wholesale slaughter of rebels unfettered, and then back the Iranians.
The Persian Gulf would become a battle zone and the oil supply would diminish drastically and quickly. Terrorism would explode here and in any country in the Middle East that supported us. We would face nearly immediate economic ruin for all but the very wealthiest in America.
So we would be left with a severely limited base of operations, no direct land access, hundreds of miles of sea patrolled by planes, ships and submarines which are far beyond anything we have ever actually engaged in a modern war, the full backing of not one but two Super Powers, and economic suicide.
And Romney thinks this is a good idea. Worse, millions of Americans who have no idea of the ramifications of what he is selling, are buying the idea.
Mitt Romney is talking tough talk about stopping Iran and taking military action if necessary. Why? Obama has proved to be 10 times better on foreign policy and defense than any president since George HW Bush and this was an area the GOP used to dominate. However, since Libya and Osama bin Laden, polls show that when Americans are asked Who would you rather have in charge during a war? Independents overwhelmingly say Obama. If nothing else, Libya has been percieved as a victory in showing the American Public something they haven't seen in the Middle East since Bush 41: an exit strategy.
But this talk of attacking Iran is sheer lunacy that preys on the ignorance of Americans in regards to the military, geo-political and economic catastrophe such action would cause.
1 Military. Irans military would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. They have a half million troops plus close to two million more in reserve. Additionally, Iraqs military was depleted to almost non-existence by a decade of sanctions, when America walked through them like they werent even there. This would not be the case with Iran. We also would not be able to just knock out their radar, SAMs etc with drones and airstrikes and then attack on the ground like we did with Iraq.
Iran is among the richest countries in the region and certainly among the best equipped, militarily. They have American fighter jets (including F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, the planes featured in the movie "Top Gun") as well as their own more modern jets, and SAMs that are MUCH more sophisticated than Iraqs were.
Attacking by the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman would also result in terrible losses because the Persians have a modern navy with destroyers, frigates, Russian Kilo Class submarines etc Is their military better than ours? No way. But we lost thousands of troops to primitive IEDs in a counter insurgency. The Iranian military is not armed with primitive weapons and they have more supplies and ammunition than they will need to fight for years, if attacked.
2 Geo-Political and Logistical Considerations. If all that werent enough, the politics of the region would be immediately and permanently turned against us. After the lies and political bullying that preceded Iraq, there is no way the USA would get UN resolution or support. This means all the cost and casualties would be ours alone. Turkey would not let us use their bases as they did for Iraq. Now that we have installed a Shia government in Iraq, they wouldnt let us use their bases either. Allowing us to do so would renew the spirit and efforts of the Iraqi insurgents and their government doesn't need us anymore.
The proximity to Pakistan would put the small majority who favor America in danger of losing control of their government if we allowed our warships to engage in battles directly off their shores. If any Paki casualties occurred, we could indeed be opposed to a country that really does have WMDs nukes.
The Shia and Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other countries would surely assist the Persians covertly. Worst of all, both China and Russia have strong interest in and ties to Iran. We could easily be faced with the proposition of a showdown with one or both, either militarily or at least, economically.
The Chinese could then leverage our debt to them while the Russians would be all too happy to supply all the sophisticated technology that oil will buy. The Syrians (the third component of the Shia Axis created by the installation of the Bush-picked government in Iraq), would engage in the wholesale slaughter of rebels unfettered, and then back the Iranians.
The Persian Gulf would become a battle zone and the oil supply would diminish drastically and quickly. Terrorism would explode here and in any country in the Middle East that supported us. We would face nearly immediate economic ruin for all but the very wealthiest in America.
So we would be left with a severely limited base of operations, no direct land access, hundreds of miles of sea patrolled by planes, ships and submarines which are far beyond anything we have ever actually engaged in a modern war, the full backing of not one but two Super Powers, and economic suicide.
And Romney thinks this is a good idea. Worse, millions of Americans who have no idea of the ramifications of what he is selling, are buying the idea.
