... and then?

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

Once we have accomplished what we intended (I assume crippling Iran's nuclear program), then we would stop. Ball is in Iran's court at that point.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

I would guess you could congratulate yourself to another failed state created by yourself. One with nuclear facilities... bombed or not, the already processed Uranium hardly will disappear just because of some bombs.
Well and it will probably be a very good breeding ground for new terror movements against the US that will use Iran as strong home basis. (That will suddenly enjoy wide support by the people). You think Iran is that already today? Well then just wait and see how it really looks like when it becomes one.

Sounds like fun.

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

We wouldn't be in it to create a new state. We wouldn't even need to try. So, how can we fail at something that was never even our intent?

I think any strike against Iran that cripples their regime would open the door for another revolution. We are already seeing that the average Iranian is not happy with their government. Of course, we have no idea what will happen until the bombs are dropped.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

I did not suggest that. I just suggested that you would erode the existing state through destroying its power basis (infrastructure, armed forces) that there is tremendous risk that it could collapse and and up either in civil war or chaos.
Yes, like in Iraq?`
You are right that Iranians are not happy with the government, but a an aggression war of the US against their own country, would not create any new state that could be in any way friendly towards you, while having the support of the people

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

Depends. This is where a proper information warfare campaign would come into play, along with clandestine support of anti-government factions.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Ha you think the Iranians would believe the proganda you call "information warfare"?. They will have independant information sources, as they are the are themselves witnesses of your acts. Its not like the US that is not at war but at the mall you can lie to, those Iranians are in the middle of the war, there you can't simply spread a bit disinformation and think everything as fine again.

A propos your own fellow citizens.
You will be good advised to use that "information warfare" against your own American citizens. But what do I say, thats what the US perfected itself in the last wars anyway. Indeed, some learned out of Vietnam: Better dont tell the demos the truth. Otherwise it would reclaim its rule.


Another important point. In case the regime does not collapse. You would have changed the rules. What has been before a rational regime with not so bad perspectives and a running economy, would be then a despereate regime. Desperate people can start to consider concepts like revenge or "and if its the last thing I do"-concepts.
Moreover, just because you tell them the war is over, why should they agree? If the military capabilities and the infrastructure are already bombed away, there are still lots of possibilities for asymmetric warfare of huge scale. Iran has considerable forces it could lead to state lead guerrilla and terrorism in case it really sees no alternative to hit you.

It might continue as long until the regime collapse and then it would not stop, but just start to get even worse for you.


I dont know why Americans assume they can lead wars here and there, and when they have destroyed as much as they wanted, they could just tell the other side to forget it and be friends again. It doesn't work that way.

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I have no idea. I know it would be a hard battle, given that the Iranian regime will be force-feeding them all sorts of BS about the Great Satan and such. Still, I don't think the Iranians are blind sheep. The information in the build-up to any strike would be critical.

If by Demos you mean democrats, you should know that they ran most of the Vietnam conflict.

That is certainly a possibilty. However, the difference between you and I here is that I am presenting my opinions as possibilities, you are presenting yours as fact. That is a dangerous road to start down.

We do not tell anyone that they have to be friends with us after any conflict. Hell, if I were in charge, the messege would be "hey, we are going to stop now. We could have killed all of you, but we chose not to. Don't make us choose again." Hit them so fucking hard that their people will be to damned scared to do anything. I don't care if they like us or dislike us, but they sure as hell will respect and fear our power.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Exactly, the Iranians are not blind sheep. And thats your largest problem, they won't believe everything you tell them. And they are used to probaganda at home, they will have no difficulties to identify your propaganda as such as well.

And without propaganda you will have a pretty hard time, to explain them why its good that their life is destroyed.

No, I mean the Demos in democracy. "We the people..." and stuff.

I don't write facts, I write my opinion like you do.

And that the Iran has guards that will be deployable as terrorists is something that has been claimed by Iran itself, and I dont see why it should be so unlikely to doubt that they are really considering it in case of an attack.

Its no fact, but certainties that you won't like the outcome of your war a in my opinion considerably higher than the other way.

Oh, the total war recipe. Well if you hit harder their hatred just will be even worse. I live in a country that tried to rule by force and terror, I tell you something its normally no stable basis. In asymmetrical warfare the harder you hit the more resources the terrorists are probably able to get to hit you with.

Not to start about talking what the rest of the international community would think of you. Do you belong to those who think it doesnt matter if everyone turns away from you in disgust so far as they can? Even Bush already realized that this not the best concept.

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I'm not sure what you're saying, and I don't want to jump conclusions. Can you fill in the gap between these two statements?

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

Surely Iran would flood Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons to the militias if the US attacked them. What is now a trickle of illegal smuggling would increase dramatically, this would put american troops in a difficult situation, it is even possible or even likely that Iraq would be lost.

It's a serious gamble to attack Iran now, with the situation in Iraq so unstable, and it is not pressing either, Iran won't be able to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come.

There is so much to lose from attacking now instead of waiting to see how this develops. There is plenty of time to resolve this peacefully and to the satisfaction of all involved. But time is running out on the Bush administration.

An enemy is an enemy. Nothing more to it. No need for remorse, pity, or mercy. When war comes my enemies are no longer human, and therefore should not be treated as such until they surrender or the war ends.

I am a firm believer in the two old adages of "War is hell" and "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over". Therefore, when military action is taken against a country I believe nothing should be held back. Everything at our disposal should be on the table for possible use, regardless of the potential casualties they many inflict on the enemy. To me, the lives of my fellow Marines (soldiers, sailors, airmen) and Americans are worth far more than those of my enemies.

All that being said, I believe our goals when it comes to Iran can be achived without nukes. That is why I said I do not agree with mawg. However, the option should not be taken off the table simply because many Iranians would die.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Interesting.

I suspect that this is just going to have to be one of those places where we respect each others' views, but agree to disagree.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

This way of handling it makes it possible to understand how the Germans could do what they did. They only had a very "broad" understanding of "enemy" as sole difference.

So in case your "enemy" term only refers to soldiers (hey but there for sure are non uniformed civlia.... ehm illegal fighters as well), you could massacre and torture only them. Still good enough for being dispiced.


Enemies always remain humans. There is nothing like subhumans, and I dont want to see a state reappearing in which this concept is reintroduced again.

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I think a federal UN could simply enforce official weights and measures for commercial reactors.