Arkansas politician - bombing Iran will only take a few days

[Zaune]

... we'd end up re-instituting the draft and garrisoning five countries by the time it was done.

Well, that would be one way to cut unemployment and boost the economy, I suppose.

[Baffalo]

... we'd end up re-instituting the draft and garrisoning five countries by the time it was done.

Well, that would be one way to cut unemployment and boost the economy, I suppose.

And the resulting massive spike in spending would send America into so much debt that when the soldiers got home they wouldn't be on leave, but rather deployed as peacekeepers to keep the average citizen from looting banks and supermarkets because the economy's gone to shit.

[Zaune]

I didn't say it was a good way to do it.

[The Romulan Republic]

While I normally support intervention when its necessary to stop mass murder, I think a strong argument can be made that America should try to stay out of any wars that aren't necessary for its own survival at the moment because we have such a huge debt problem and a lot of domestic problems that need our attention.

[whackadoodle]

Follow the money people; he's sponsored coincidently received donations from the military industrial complex. There's nothing more to it than doing what his sponsors donors ask him to do. Perfectly reasonable really ...

Who? 'Cause I'm looking at his top 15 donors, and I don't see any that have major interests in the MIC. A bunch of Arkansas interests ( Murphy Oil, Kirklands, etc. ) and the usual suspects: Club for Growth, Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs (they donate to everybody, btw). Also, some regional concerns, Elliot Management and the Stephens Group, and a fuckton of law firms. Not an MIC-affilated donor of note. Nope, the money doesn't apply here. In, JesusLand, Israel Uber Alles*.

*http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp

[Simon_Jester]

This sounds a lot like a policeman trying to charge someone with resisting arrest because they resisted his fist with their now-broken nose, and he thinks he scraped a knuckle.

You mean basically like america?

Actually my argument is that this is too stupid even for Americans.

You and Simon_Jester seem to be under the impression that I am arguing in favour of an all-out war with Iran. I am assuredly not, much less arguing in favour of fucking genocide as Simon_Jester seems to think. I hope for a diplomatic resolution and I have a great deal of contempt for the Republicans' position on this issue. I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

For Iran to be destroyed as a nation genocide would be involved.

If Iran is attacked, they are not likely to sit in armchairs and make a quiet risk-assessment calculation. They are likely to make the decision that national pride demands, because the survival of the current Iranian government depends heavily on the loyalty of the Iranian people, and that loyalty in turn depends on the perception that the current Iranian government will protect the Iranian people and stand up to foreigners on their behalf. Remember that the current government came to power by overthrowing a shah who was widely seen as a foreign puppet.

Simon_Jester, nukes are an issue because such a major war might well involve other, more powerful countries (like Syria and Iran's buddy Russia) and because honestly we can't realistically afford, in terms of troops or money, to occupy several middle eastern nations at once, so if things got bad enough and the wrong person was in power... who knows?

In that case, it would be wise for the US to not start the ball rolling by bombing a country nuclear powers consider a friend, no?

I mean, you can't argue "in a conflict between A and B, B should not escalate" because nukes might get involved without ALSO saying "in a conflict between A and B, A should not escalate." Especially when the people likely to do the first round of nuking are the friends of B, and not the friends of A.

Since we're the ones choosing whether or not to have armed conflict with Iran, we are the ones who get to make the first conscious decision to de-escalate.

Which Obama did make- and which this Cotton idiot wouldn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Simon_Jester, your post is worded in a way that implies that you think I support a potentially genocidal war against Iran. This is insulting, idiotic, and, since I specifically addressed it already, proof that you are either not reading what I say, choosing to dismiss it, or simply being dishonest.

Edit: And I acknowledge that Iran might choose to fight back anyway. That doesn't mean it would be the rational thing to do.

[Simon_Jester]

Ahem.

To be precisely clear:

I am stating the reasons NOT to wage war on Iran.

I am stating them in response to things you said.

That is all.

I am not, I repeat NOT, stating that you have advocated a nuclear war in, against, or involving Iran. I didn't say that.

But rather than decide that you think this because you didn't read my post, I am going to assume it was an honest misunderstanding, because that's the obvious conclusion when we both know we're basically sane and sensible human beings.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Adding another hundred pages of glory to the Epic of National Resistance may, in fact, be the wisest course of action for the people who believe like the Ayatollahs. By the point in time we've abstracted things to your pacifistic view of wisdom, we no longer have Iran, but a hypothetical rational actor you named Iran. Nations are not rational and mostly fight wars for reasons of national prestige, shame and honour, as they have since the age of Thucydides and will until the heat death of the universe.

[LaCroix]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Why not? If America does this "limited bombing", it will have to wipe out Iran's air defense network and airforce to do so. Which leaves Iran wide open to attack from everyone who would like a piece of it. And there are a couple of nations that do want one of said pieces. (Their only nominal allies are Syria (*snort*) and Lebanon.)

Trying to downplay it as only limited, or only against the nuclear infrastructure is a strawman born of ignorance of military and political facts. It's quite obvious that such a "limited bombing" would result in the destruction of Iran, anyway.

Iran's ONLY way to prevent to end up as the punching bag for everyone is to immediately lash out with maximum force, first, and trying to catch ground forces unaware, and supress enemy airforces by overrunning the airfields, maybe capturing aircraft. And recruiting local population for help as they go.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Adding another hundred pages of glory to the Epic of National Resistance may, in fact, be the wisest course of action for the people who believe like the Ayatollahs. By the point in time we've abstracted things to your pacifistic view of wisdom, we no longer have Iran, but a hypothetical rational actor you named Iran. Nations are not rational and mostly fight wars for reasons of national prestige, shame and honour, as they have since the age of Thucydides and will until the heat death of the universe.

I don't deny that Iran might choose to try to go out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory, though I'm not convinced this attitude is as universal as you think it is and in any case, I maintain my position that it is not a rational one.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Why not? If America does this "limited bombing", it will have to wipe out Iran's air defense network and airforce to do so. Which leaves Iran wide open to attack from everyone who would like a piece of it. And there are a couple of nations that do want one of said pieces. (Their only nominal allies are Syria (*snort*) and Lebanon.)

Trying to downplay it as only limited, or only against the nuclear infrastructure is a strawman born of ignorance of military and political facts. It's quite obvious that such a "limited bombing" would result in the destruction of Iran, anyway.

Iran's ONLY way to prevent to end up as the punching bag for everyone is to immediately lash out with maximum force, first, and trying to catch ground forces unaware, and supress enemy airforces by overrunning the airfields, maybe capturing aircraft. And recruiting local population for help as they go.

Iran would "...end up as the punching bag for everyone..." in your scenario. Iran can't take the world. Like I said, this wouldn't be a self-preservation strategy. It would be a going out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory strategy (if you consider thousands of pointlessly dead people glorious).

Even with their air defence wrecked, they might, conceivably, survive a war with some other fairly weak local nations. They won't survive a war against America and all its allies as well. Not with their current government, anyway.

[Irbis]

Why not? If America does this "limited bombing", it will have to wipe out Iran's air defense network and airforce to do so. Which leaves Iran wide open to attack from everyone who would like a piece of it. And there are a couple of nations that do want one of said pieces. (Their only nominal allies are Syria (*snort*) and Lebanon.)

And *which* states would be even remotely in Iran's league, even without its airforce? The only one that comes to mind is Turkey and they seem to have quite peaceful relations.

Trying to downplay it as only limited, or only against the nuclear infrastructure is a strawman born of ignorance of military and political facts. It's quite obvious that such a "limited bombing" would result in the destruction of Iran, anyway.

Funny that everyone here forgot how USA bombed certain country to the ground in "totally super limited campaign, honest!" on fictitious reasons 16 years ago, even ending up hitting embassy of neutral grand power in their dash to not run out of targets and no one dared to utter a word of protest or retaliate in any way.

In a sense, the Arkansas guy just behaves like bully that has gotten away with beating others so many times he just can't understand what consequences are or why it would be good to act different for once if beating others makes them fold and acquiesce to any demand.

And the sad part is, that senseless, stupid, misaimed bullying taints and poisons the well for all the occasions where military campaign would be good idea, that is, one done to restore order and peace, not one done for selfish reasons or to further agenda of just one nation.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Adding another hundred pages of glory to the Epic of National Resistance may, in fact, be the wisest course of action for the people who believe like the Ayatollahs. By the point in time we've abstracted things to your pacifistic view of wisdom, we no longer have Iran, but a hypothetical rational actor you named Iran. Nations are not rational and mostly fight wars for reasons of national prestige, shame and honour, as they have since the age of Thucydides and will until the heat death of the universe.

I don't deny that Iran might choose to try to go out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory, though I'm not convinced this attitude is as universal as you think it is and in any case, I maintain my position that it is not a rational one.

I don't disagree that it's irrational, nor so far as I can tell does Duchess...

But it's kind of a moot point if it's illogical for them to do X, if they nevertheless are going to do X anyway.

More generally- think about it. We see a steady stream of criticisms on this forum, and in this very thread, about how many Americans are willing to cheer for nationalistic posturing that denies basic military realities. Why would the Iranians be any different?

They have MORE reasons to reject rational-pacifism than Americans do, because the current world order doesn't put them on top. Because they have a national history of being exploited and oppressed and bullied by foreigners. Cowering to further attempts at bullying is exactly what they would NOT have an incentive to do... even if it is "logical" for them to cower.

Duchess argued that nations mostly fight wars for reasons of prestige, shame, and honor. If you think about the last several wars the US has gotten into... that's a pretty accurate description. In no recent case was the amount of effort we committed to the war 'logical' in light of the costs and consequences of doing so.

Either we're entering wars based on logic and getting the cost calculation wrong literally every single time... Or we're getting into wars for reasons other than calculation.

Why would Iran be any different?

[LaCroix]

Funny that everyone here forgot how USA bombed certain country to the ground in "totally super limited campaign, honest!" on fictitious reasons 16 years ago, even ending up hitting embassy of neutral grand power in their dash to not run out of targets and no one dared to utter a word of protest or retaliate in any way.

In an invasion of said country, including ground troops. And Iraq tried to protest and retaliate, it just didn't have the means to do so, because it was underarmed, after it'S army had already been bombed to pieces a couple of years ago...

Iran has those means. Especially to a "limited" air-only campain. These scenarios are completely different. Do not confuse Iran with Iraq. You cannot stop them from mining the strait and turning the whole area into even more of a powder keg than it already is. That's why the US is not considering an attack and hasn't been - other than random politicians, the guys in charge know how things are. There is no way to conduct such a mission without that kind of backlash unless you are moving a LOT of troops into the area beforehand and conduct a not-so-limited bombing campain. And if you do this, Iran will find out and act preemptively, causing exactly the problems you want to avoid. And Iran knows that the US knows. Politics.

[LaCroix]

double post...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm just saying that if America bombed Iran, it wouldn't be wise for Iran to launch an all-out war in retaliation.

Adding another hundred pages of glory to the Epic of National Resistance may, in fact, be the wisest course of action for the people who believe like the Ayatollahs. By the point in time we've abstracted things to your pacifistic view of wisdom, we no longer have Iran, but a hypothetical rational actor you named Iran. Nations are not rational and mostly fight wars for reasons of national prestige, shame and honour, as they have since the age of Thucydides and will until the heat death of the universe.

I don't deny that Iran might choose to try to go out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory, though I'm not convinced this attitude is as universal as you think it is and in any case, I maintain my position that it is not a rational one.

It ISN'T a futile nationalist blaze of glory, because there will still be an Iran afterwards unless Obama really is Hitler, and the national ethos will be retrenched into supporting an anti-western leadership. It may be terminal for some of the leadership, but that's all. That's what you've been missing the entire time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Iran would "...end up as the punching bag for everyone..." in your scenario. Iran can't take the world. Like I said, this wouldn't be a self-preservation strategy. It would be a going out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory strategy (if you consider thousands of pointlessly dead people glorious).

Even with their air defence wrecked, they might, conceivably, survive a war with some other fairly weak local nations. They won't survive a war against America and all its allies as well. Not with their current government, anyway.

One, millions of dead. Two, Iran can take on the world by fighting a guerrilla war, exactly like how Iraq was consuming pretty much every single western expeditionary force in existence. We're not militarized enough to garrison Iran effectively. I mean, if we've reinstituted the draft and put five million 18 year olds into Iran with rifles, I think Iran has won in terms of the socioeconomic damage it's inflicted on America.

[The Romulan Republic]

It ISN'T a futile nationalist blaze of glory, because there will still be an Iran afterwards unless Obama really is Hitler, and the national ethos will be retrenched into supporting an anti-western leadership. It may be terminal for some of the leadership, but that's all. That's what you've been missing the entire time.

I suppose that's a valid point.

Still, if I were in their place I think I'd focus on defence and try to survive rather than go on a doomed all-out offensive. Of course, if I was in their place we wouldn't be having this issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Iran would "...end up as the punching bag for everyone..." in your scenario. Iran can't take the world. Like I said, this wouldn't be a self-preservation strategy. It would be a going out in a futile nationalist blaze of glory strategy (if you consider thousands of pointlessly dead people glorious).

Even with their air defence wrecked, they might, conceivably, survive a war with some other fairly weak local nations. They won't survive a war against America and all its allies as well. Not with their current government, anyway.

One, millions of dead. Two, Iran can take on the world by fighting a guerrilla war, exactly like how Iraq was consuming pretty much every single western expeditionary force in existence. We're not militarized enough to garrison Iran effectively. I mean, if we've reinstituted the draft and put five million 18 year olds into Iran with rifles, I think Iran has won in terms of the socioeconomic damage it's inflicted on America.

Oh, it would certainly fuck up America. The potential damage to America is great enough, politically and economically, that I think its best to think of war with Iran as a sort of mini-Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. But this is something a lot of Republicans, with their posturing nationalism and war fetish, don't seem to grasp.

[Simon_Jester]

It ISN'T a futile nationalist blaze of glory, because there will still be an Iran afterwards unless Obama really is Hitler, and the national ethos will be retrenched into supporting an anti-western leadership. It may be terminal for some of the leadership, but that's all. That's what you've been missing the entire time.

I suppose that's a valid point.

Still, if I were in their place I think I'd focus on defence and try to survive rather than go on a doomed all-out offensive. Of course, if I was in their place we wouldn't be having this issue.

Oh, they might do that- but they have the means to launch a military offensive that would seriously trouble the United States, and that hasn't happened for twenty years, arguably not for forty-five.

It's something to bear in mind, when we take for granted that the US is invincible except maybe to Russia and China.

[Crown]

Follow the money people; he's sponsored coincidently received donations from the military industrial complex. There's nothing more to it than doing what his sponsors donors ask him to do. Perfectly reasonable really ...

Who? 'Cause I'm looking at his top 15 donors, and I don't see any that have major interests in the MIC. A bunch of Arkansas interests ( Murphy Oil, Kirklands, etc. ) and the usual suspects: Club for Growth, Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs (they donate to everybody, btw). Also, some regional concerns, Elliot Management and the Stephens Group, and a fuckton of law firms. Not an MIC-affilated donor of note. Nope, the money doesn't apply here. In, JesusLand, Israel Uber Alles*.

*http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp

Sorry I put the cart before the horse, he met with the MIC after organising the letter of 47 traitors to the Ayatollah of Iran;

Sauce

Mea Culpa.

[Baffalo]

The thing that irks me is that it's clearly an attempt to fuck up the Obama administration's attempts to negotiate with Iran while making it clear that they oppose this venture. In the long run, however, I am curious what the side effects of this are going to be. Did he do this for political reasons beyond the "I'm the new guy in the Senate and check out my political balls" or was he perhaps doing this because as the junior senator, he's still considered "expendable".