6 ms·

I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thous

by tkahn6 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.

yahelc 15y ago
By all accounts, an invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Specifically, Iran has a more advanced military, as well as a more centralized force apparatus with hugely radicalized and patriotic forces. Iraq was largely a cult of personality regime that kept its influence through clientelism and tribal rivalries, lacking in a central patriotic spirit. (That's why sectarian conflict outlasted nationalistic conflict by a factor of 10.) The war in Iraq killed between 100k-150k civilians, according to most estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War All this implies that an invasion and occupation of Iran would take a huge toll on civilians.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. "Military action" almost by definition, means there will be troops fighting or planes bombing (even if that means we're just supporting a force already fighting there). There is no military action we could take that would not result in Iran being torn to pieces, and when politicians talk about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", they mean just that. The populace is very Western, and very much like America. They're advanced, liberal, and young, and being led by a government they can't relate to and can't get rid of. We could do sanctions (we are). We could do cyber warfare (we might be/probably are). What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. If we started anything, Israel would join in, Great Britain may also, and Iran would strike back hard. They may even bring some allies. Even one soldier on the ground or one jet fighter in the air would leave invasion as the only remaining option.
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      > Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again. > What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). I don't know what this means. > Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. This sounds like wishful thinking and again, military action in any capacity (e.g. dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities) is not synonymous with 'full scale, classic-style war'.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        >Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again. What I understood was "we don't want civilian deaths". You said you didn't see how military action wouldn't result in civilian death. I made the argument that military action means shooting and explosions, which would almost certainly result in civilian deaths (because it always has). >I don't know what this means. You can't use the military without using the military. Using the military means death. >dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities Which of course, Iran would just sit by and accept and not fight back. If we attack Iran, they will attack back. I think you're missing the bigger picture. If we attack Iran (who has a strong, central army like us), we will enter into direct nation vs nation warfare (unlike any war the US has fought since WWII).
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      I can very easily imagine a US led action that destroyed Iran's naval and air forces in very short order, without a single boot on the ground, ever. I don't know if I support such action, or if it would have the desired outcome, but I do know portraying the only options as "no military action" or "full scale armored ground invasion" is just not correct.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        In order to have no repercussions from Iran, we'd have to know every detail of their armaments and organize to take them out roughly at the same time. If we fail, they hit back. Even if we succeed, that may garner sympathy from nations friendly to them, who may supply arms, that's really hard to forsee. And even if we did that, how many civilians do they have working in or surrounding the facilities we'd need to target?
  - batista 15y ago
    De facto, military action is invasion. You INVADE another sovereign country, even if only your planes, in order to "drop bombs on their weapon factories", as you suggest in a comment below. How would you call a similar action of another country to your country's weapon facilities if not invasion?
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      I suppose I should have said 'full scale' invasion a la Shock and Awe.
- sp332 15y ago
  Iraq's army was a cakewalk. The fighting was over in hours, and it took less than 2 weeks to mop up the military and police forces in the country. Iran might be a little harder, but their military won't pose a serious challenge to US forces. The fact that they are centralized means it probably won't degenerate into the morass we're facing with Iraq.
  - roc 15y ago
    The morass in Iraq may well have resulted in less trouble for the US itself than a concerted guerrilla resistance would have. All the sectarian violence, revenge killings, cleansing, etc were energy and resources expended that were not directed at US forces. Further, a large quantity of resistance directed at the US was attributed to Iranian agents, weapons and training. I'd imagine that what they could muster in defense of their own nation would dwarf what they could export to a country they didn't particularly care for.
  - aw3c2 15y ago
    And is life in Iraq better now?
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      The point is not to make life better in Iran. The point is to remove the regime's nuclear capability. If the goal was to make life better in Iran there would be no economic sanctions.
      - ucee054 15y ago
        This attitude is why "it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians". US soldiers will not give a damn about civilian lives if said civilians are ragheads like me, and will drop bombs on anything from sewage treatment plants to nuclear power stations, whatever accomplishes "the mission". The ensuing radioactive fallout and disease will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents but they don't count, they are only people who look like me, not real humans. The Iranian government have the option of retaliating at the instant of the first explosion with a barrage of supersonic torpedos. If said barrage is large enough it could overwhelm US defenses and take out the US fleet, the gulf state oil installations and pipelines, perhaps the Saudi oil reserve. To see where this leads, google for "Philip Giraldi" and "World War 3". Here is a link: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with...
batista 15y ago
I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians. Maybe they know their history, and have seen what happened the other times the US/NATO took military action.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  So how does the Libyan intervention play into your narrative?
  - batista 15y ago
    You mean how they supported some small groups (mostly of mercenaries posing as "rebels", used by western powers to mimic the actual popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunis), toppled the dictator, established a puppet interim government, and turned a stable for decades years country into an unstable civil war nightmare with more to come? Yeah, what about the Libyan intervention?
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      Given that the Arab League was asking for NATO help, this was a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. Clearly one that gives you glee and plays into some nationalistic inferiority complex that you have with respect to American hegemony. The point though was that the mission was accomplished with minimal civilian casualties (or as minimal as one could expect from an urban guerrilla war) and there were no combat troops on the ground.

by tkahn6 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians.

yahelc 15y ago

By all accounts, an invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Specifically, Iran has a more advanced military, as well as a more centralized force apparatus with hugely radicalized and patriotic forces. Iraq was largely a cult of personality regime that kept its influence through clientelism and tribal rivalries, lacking in a central patriotic spirit. (That's why sectarian conflict outlasted nationalistic conflict by a factor of 10.) The war in Iraq killed between 100k-150k civilians, according to most estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War All this implies that an invasion and occupation of Iran would take a huge toll on civilians.

tkahn6 15y ago
Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.
- freehunter 15y ago
  Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. "Military action" almost by definition, means there will be troops fighting or planes bombing (even if that means we're just supporting a force already fighting there). There is no military action we could take that would not result in Iran being torn to pieces, and when politicians talk about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", they mean just that. The populace is very Western, and very much like America. They're advanced, liberal, and young, and being led by a government they can't relate to and can't get rid of. We could do sanctions (we are). We could do cyber warfare (we might be/probably are). What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. If we started anything, Israel would join in, Great Britain may also, and Iran would strike back hard. They may even bring some allies. Even one soldier on the ground or one jet fighter in the air would leave invasion as the only remaining option.
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    > Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again. > What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons). I don't know what this means. > Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII. This sounds like wishful thinking and again, military action in any capacity (e.g. dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities) is not synonymous with 'full scale, classic-style war'.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      >Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again. What I understood was "we don't want civilian deaths". You said you didn't see how military action wouldn't result in civilian death. I made the argument that military action means shooting and explosions, which would almost certainly result in civilian deaths (because it always has). >I don't know what this means. You can't use the military without using the military. Using the military means death. >dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities Which of course, Iran would just sit by and accept and not fight back. If we attack Iran, they will attack back. I think you're missing the bigger picture. If we attack Iran (who has a strong, central army like us), we will enter into direct nation vs nation warfare (unlike any war the US has fought since WWII).
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    I can very easily imagine a US led action that destroyed Iran's naval and air forces in very short order, without a single boot on the ground, ever. I don't know if I support such action, or if it would have the desired outcome, but I do know portraying the only options as "no military action" or "full scale armored ground invasion" is just not correct.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      In order to have no repercussions from Iran, we'd have to know every detail of their armaments and organize to take them out roughly at the same time. If we fail, they hit back. Even if we succeed, that may garner sympathy from nations friendly to them, who may supply arms, that's really hard to forsee. And even if we did that, how many civilians do they have working in or surrounding the facilities we'd need to target?
- batista 15y ago
  De facto, military action is invasion. You INVADE another sovereign country, even if only your planes, in order to "drop bombs on their weapon factories", as you suggest in a comment below. How would you call a similar action of another country to your country's weapon facilities if not invasion?
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    I suppose I should have said 'full scale' invasion a la Shock and Awe.
sp332 15y ago
Iraq's army was a cakewalk. The fighting was over in hours, and it took less than 2 weeks to mop up the military and police forces in the country. Iran might be a little harder, but their military won't pose a serious challenge to US forces. The fact that they are centralized means it probably won't degenerate into the morass we're facing with Iraq.
- roc 15y ago
  The morass in Iraq may well have resulted in less trouble for the US itself than a concerted guerrilla resistance would have. All the sectarian violence, revenge killings, cleansing, etc were energy and resources expended that were not directed at US forces. Further, a large quantity of resistance directed at the US was attributed to Iranian agents, weapons and training. I'd imagine that what they could muster in defense of their own nation would dwarf what they could export to a country they didn't particularly care for.
- aw3c2 15y ago
  And is life in Iraq better now?
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    The point is not to make life better in Iran. The point is to remove the regime's nuclear capability. If the goal was to make life better in Iran there would be no economic sanctions.
    - ucee054 15y ago
      This attitude is why "it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians". US soldiers will not give a damn about civilian lives if said civilians are ragheads like me, and will drop bombs on anything from sewage treatment plants to nuclear power stations, whatever accomplishes "the mission". The ensuing radioactive fallout and disease will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents but they don't count, they are only people who look like me, not real humans. The Iranian government have the option of retaliating at the instant of the first explosion with a barrage of supersonic torpedos. If said barrage is large enough it could overwhelm US defenses and take out the US fleet, the gulf state oil installations and pipelines, perhaps the Saudi oil reserve. To see where this leads, google for "Philip Giraldi" and "World War 3". Here is a link: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with...

batista 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand how it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians. Maybe they know their history, and have seen what happened the other times the US/NATO took military action.

tkahn6 15y ago
So how does the Libyan intervention play into your narrative?
- batista 15y ago
  You mean how they supported some small groups (mostly of mercenaries posing as "rebels", used by western powers to mimic the actual popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunis), toppled the dictator, established a puppet interim government, and turned a stable for decades years country into an unstable civil war nightmare with more to come? Yeah, what about the Libyan intervention?
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    Given that the Arab League was asking for NATO help, this was a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. Clearly one that gives you glee and plays into some nationalistic inferiority complex that you have with respect to American hegemony. The point though was that the mission was accomplished with minimal civilian casualties (or as minimal as one could expect from an urban guerrilla war) and there were no combat troops on the ground.