4 ms·

Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.

by tkahn6 15y ago

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.

Again, I don't understand why military action in any capacity is synonymous with invasion and occupation. I don't dispute your statements.

by 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.