Its time to militarily conduct regime change in Iran

[Sunni Man]

HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...

No wonder we have been losing in all of our overseas military adventures

 

[toomuchtime_]

ARE YOU NUTS?(do you have a CLUE on the size of Iran's different armies?)

NO

Change from within, is the only way to go....

We fought a Revolution, for our own freedom....and it lasts that way....

As others have said, these situations are not remotely similar?


Ummmmm, Japan ATTACKED us, at Pearl Harbor? And Germany declared war against us BEFORE we got involved in WWII?


You truly are not making any sense too much time?

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

War was declared on us, it is the only legal reason we constitutionally had, to go in to world war II imo....

Genocide is not occurring in Iran, yes they had some brutality with this election, but no where near the brutality and systematic killing that is going on in the Sudan and other regions of the world, where we may have to send help....NOT declare war.

Care

No two situations are exactly the same, but with respect to the point you originally made about regime change from the outside not lasting, Japan and Germany show that regime change from the outside can last.

In fact, we attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor. The famous Flying Tigers, while technically part of the Chinese army, were US pilots flying US planes given to China who were secretly being paid by the US government and who received full credit on their service records for time served in the Chinese army. In addition, FDR acted to block resource poor Japan from taking control of raw materials on the mainland and also ended the sale of essential raw materials to Japan from US sources. There are credible reports that while FDR campaigned for reelection in 1940 by promising to keep the US out of the war, he was also assuring Churchill that he would work to bring us into the war. In addition, the military aid we were giving to Britain before Pearl Harbor was essential to their war effort. So we were clearly waging proxy wars against Japan and Germany before Pearl Harbor.

My point is that if we believe oppressed people can win their freedom if they are willing to pay the price, wouldn't it have been smarter for FDR to have been understanding about Japan's and German's national ambitions and not to have aided the Chinese and British and to have allowed the oppressed peoples of Asia and Europe to have fought their, in effect, revolutions, as we did our's? Had we behaved this way, there is absolutely no indication that either Japan or Germany would have had any interest in attacking us here at home, and there is no reason to think they would have had any objection to continuing to do business with us.

 

[rhodescholar]

I would not send one US soldier for Iran.

If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.

Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.

The questions I put then to all those who are against a military strike:

1) 6 years of diplomatic efforts have failed - do you realistically think that further talks can accomplish anything at this point?

2) iran has used the last 6 years of "talks" as a fig leaf to continue their nuclear weapons development - are you willing to allow them more time to develop them towards completion?

3) since iran is the primary rejectionist state in the middle east, and will never allow a peaceful resolution to the israeli-pal arab conflict, what is the purpose of attempting to solve that crises if the US allows iran's current regime to continue to exist?

4) Since it is not realistic for the US to simply pull out of the middle east - it provides a protective umbrella so that other allies can receive uninterrupted oil flow - like japan, for instance - and would lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by enemies such as China, Russia, iran, etc., what other option, since diplomacy is not viable, to work in time before iran constructs nuclear weapons?

 

[rhodescholar]

Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without. On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided? Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

After this post, Gunny can close this thread.

Everything that needed to be said, that could be said, that should be said, on this topic, was said, in this post.

Screw you toomuch, for being born with a more efficient, capable skillset at presenting ideas and facts succinctly and eloquently. Damn you

 

[rhodescholar]

1) Comparing Germany and Japan to the ME is wrong. Two different kettle of fish.

Incorrect, iran's governing structure is nearly identical to Nazi Germany's, and retains the same firecely religious, mystical belief as in Japan of an unchallengeable leader.

2) Japan and Germany were expansionist in nature, Iran has kept within its own borders.

This line borders on trolling...

3) The Europeans were willing to fight during WWII, but with the exception of Britain, they lost.

What does this mean?

 

[Sunni Man]

Surely, you are not suggesting democracy in Japan and Germany will not last because it was brought on by change from without. On the other hand, is our interest in regime change in Iran worth what a military intervention would cost us? What if FDR had been more accommodating with regard to Japan's national ambitions, as Obama seems disposed to be about Iran's nuclear ambitions, could WWII have been avoided? Perhaps if Obama had been president then he could have made a speech that inspired change from within in Germany and Japan.

Even if the magic of diplomacy wouldn't have worked with Germany and Japan, would it have been so wrong of us to have allowed them to oppress the peoples of Asia and Europe as long as they didn't directly attack us here at home? After all, if the peoples of Asia and Europe wanted change, why couldn't they take up arms and fight for it themselves? Why should 400,000 Americans have to die and another 1,500,000 be wounded to bring change to people who were unwilling to fight for it themselves?

After this post, Gunny can close this thread.

Everything that needed to be said, that could be said, that should be said, on this topic, was said, in this post.

Screw you toomuch, for being born with a more efficient, capable skillset at presenting ideas and facts succinctly and eloquently. Damn you

RhodesStupid you are nothing but a wind bag full of idiotic statements

 

[rhodescholar]

Good point, but hardly the same situation.

Why is that?

The whole point is that FDR and Churchill wanted to attack early on, while Germany was still militarily vulnerable, and acquired such a powerful military, but because of people like yourself, had to wait until Pearl Harbor, and millions dead, before Congress would accept funding towards a military buildup.

The fact that the US army got its ass kicked for 3 years in WW2 owes alot to the resistance of those who preferred to hide like sheep while the world burned, ala Ron Paul, and just so that the US could fool itself and think it could just sit safely on the other side of the ocean and wait things out.

The world is not 1750 - or even 1850 - it is globally connected, and the US military provides an umbrella of protection allowing worldwide trade to flourish.

Countries either engage in trade or war, and if the US pulls back, countries like China will use war to increase their trade at the expense of the US, and iran will use war to spread further their diseased ideology, neither scenario is tolerable.

 

[Bfgrn]

HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

Oooh kid you are funny. I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC. You're a bit late in the game...

Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily volunteer to go (back) there.

Hi Elvis. I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...

Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...

One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own...

So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...

 

[MaggieMae]

I would not send one US soldier for Iran.

If they want a new gov they will have to fight for it themselves.

Exactly! They themselves can bring the change they wish, if they truly want it. And yes, it will mean the s[illing of a lot more blood.

The questions I put then to all those who are against a military strike:

1) 6 years of diplomatic efforts have failed - do you realistically think that further talks can accomplish anything at this point?

2) iran has used the last 6 years of "talks" as a fig leaf to continue their nuclear weapons development - are you willing to allow them more time to develop them towards completion?

3) since iran is the primary rejectionist state in the middle east, and will never allow a peaceful resolution to the israeli-pal arab conflict, what is the purpose of attempting to solve that crises if the US allows iran's current regime to continue to exist?

4) Since it is not realistic for the US to simply pull out of the middle east - it provides a protective umbrella so that other allies can receive uninterrupted oil flow - like japan, for instance - and would lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by enemies such as China, Russia, iran, etc., what other option, since diplomacy is not viable, to work in time before iran constructs nuclear weapons?

The flow of oil is probably THE major reason that Iran will never be invaded. It controls access through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and should an attack on the country become imminent, Iran has the power to close off that access to oil tankers from many countries, including our own, which would in days create a global oil crisis like we've never seen before.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Hormuz.html

 

[Sunni Man]

HERE you go...put up or SHUT up...

Oooh kid you are funny. I just retired after over 20 years in the grind, most of them clandestine operations for JSOC. You're a bit late in the game...

Sorry, but I'm probably the last person here you can use that line on, and if Jim Jones needs people, I can still fit into the same uniform I put on 24 years ago, and would happily volunteer to go (back) there.

Hi Elvis. I wrote up a full description of my attack plan earlier, which is the type of plan I'm sure has been under War Game Review in SOCOM since, oh, about 20 years ago...

Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...

One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own...

So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...

LOL!! you really nailed RhodesStupid

 

[rhodescholar]

Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe. I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so. Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.

 

[rhodescholar]

The flow of oil is probably THE major reason that Iran will never be invaded. It controls access through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and should an attack on the country become imminent, Iran has the power to close off that access to oil tankers from many countries, including our own, which would in days create a global oil crisis like we've never seen before.

I can tell you with certainty that there are subs and other vessels in those waters that would eliminate any mines the fascists attempt to position, and any attempt to scuttle large ships to block the waters would be dealt with harshly during a time of engagement.

 

[geauxtohell]

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so. Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.

Unless we are simply going to admit that we have become a nation of military interventionism, we have no justification for using our military to secure other people's liberties.

Furthermore, as we found in Iraq, no matter how much we think people will embrace us as liberators, the natives tend to get pissed when you invade them.

Kind of like when outsiders try to intervene in a family spat, no matter how right they are in doing so.

Your plan of attack sounds like Iraq redux. It ignores the inevitable insurgency.

 

[Sunni Man]

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so. Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.

Unless we are simply going to admit that we have become a nation of military interventionism, we have no justification for using our military to secure other people's liberties.

Furthermore, as we found in Iraq, no matter how much we think people will embrace us as liberators, the natives tend to get pissed when you invade them.

Kind of like when outsiders try to intervene in a family spat, no matter how right they are in doing so.

Your plan of attack sounds like Iraq redux. It ignores the inevitable insurgency.

RhodesStupid is an idiot

Iran is bigger than Iraq and has a larger population.

If attacked, all of the people would fight against us.

Whereas, Iraq was divided between Sunni, Shite, and Kurds.

Iran is 99% Shia and would be united against any invaders.

If you think Iraq was a mess and hard to subdue. Iran would be 10 times worse

Plus where in our Constitution is the government given the green light to prowl the world invading and occupying other countries?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now? What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran? A regime worse than what they already have? Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe. I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so. Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.

Well guess WHAT Pea Brain Scholar... you ARE a war hawk. And if you're too old to fight then you're just an old coward that sends other people's children off to die...

WHO is going to PAY for this "full scale assault" Pea Brain Scholar...that never rattles around in your tiny pea does it? BIG military and BIG prisons are not BIG government in your twisted little mind...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...WHAT negotiations? Are you talking about 2001 and 2002, when Iran worked closely with American negotiators in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors, until Rumsfeld stepped in to end it? OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

So Pea Brain Scholar, before you come to the table, first get more than a pea brain education on history and then bring us your pea brain way of paying for your murderous plot...

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals."
Charles Evans Hughes

 

[geauxtohell]

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now? What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran? A regime worse than what they already have? Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?

Establishment of another government that is viewed as illegitimate by the people and ripe for another extremist take over in a couple of decades.

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

Self determination must come from within.

 

[Sunni Man]

Oh really...well, on weekends, I'm Jesus Christ...during the week I'm just superman...One thing about these boards Einstein...WHO you claim to be cannot be verified. Your thoughts and your ideas must stand on their own... So, because it's the weekend... I revoke your screen name...you are now Pea Brain Scholar... you are welcome...

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who or what you believe. I've stated that unlike a lot of war hawks, that I WOULD go to iran to fight - today, if asked.

Second, I've explained in detail both HOW I would launch a full scale assault on the country, AND the justifications for doing so. Since you'd rather personally insult than debate on the merits, you can fuck off and be ignored until you do provide something of substance.

Well guess WHAT Pea Brain Scholar... you ARE a war hawk. And if you're too old to fight then you're just an old coward that sends other people's children off to die...

WHO is going to PAY for this "full scale assault" Pea Brain Scholar...that never rattles around in your tiny pea does it? BIG military and BIG prisons are not BIG government in your twisted little mind...

You talk about failed negotiations for the last 6 years...WHAT negotiations? Are you talking about 2001 and 2002, when Iran worked closely with American negotiators in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors, until Rumsfeld stepped in to end it? OR, are you talking about 2003, when Bush and his band of depots rejected negotiations after Iran made a bold proposal to Washington to hold direct talks with sweeping changes like: reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel, stopping any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.), assisting America in stabilizing Iraq and a dramatic set of specific policy concessions on its nuclear program? The proposal the neocon war hawks helped undermine?

So Pea Brain Scholar, before you come to the table, first get more than a pea brain education on history and then bring us your pea brain way of paying for your murderous plot...

Be careful!!!

You will only confuse RhodesStupid by giving him too many facts

 

[toomuchtime_]

Intervening in Iran has never worked out for us yet, why in the world do you think it would work now? What would be the blowback of our getting militarily involved in Iran? A regime worse than what they already have? Us getting mired down in another war that can't possibly be won?

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

We could certainly win a war with Iran in the sense of defeating its regular and irregular military forces but what would be the long term consequence of that victory? It would certainly destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program and cripple its ability to support international terrorism or otherwise destabilize the PA and Lebanese government through its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and that would go a long way towards promoting regional peace, but would we find enough Iranians who want a different kind of government to institutionalize these benefits? Most important of all, even if we could, are we willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve this victory and those benefits and to inflict the kind of damage on the Iranian people it would require?

 

[geauxtohell]

Preventing the Shah from being overthrown did work out for us; it prevented the USSR from turning Iran into another Soviet client state like Afghanistan. One could reasonably argue that it was our failure to intervene in 1979 that allowed the present regime to come to power.

One could reasonably argue that if we intervened in every situation throughout history the world would be much different now.

And so would our nation, if it even existed.

We weren't founded on the principles of military interventionism or adventuresome.