US plans for war with Iran are ready

[Signals.Cpl]

The voices you named also warned of plenty of trouble if the attack on Iraq went forward; and the advocates mocked the very idea that there might be, oh, say, an insurgency, or sectarian strife.

The opponents were correct; the war supporters were catastrophiocally mistaken. That some opponents made specific dire predictions that didn't arise is irrelevant; much of what they predicted (while war's supporters called them "supporters of Saddam" and other such nonsense) did occur.

Those who advocated for the war were wrong at nearly every single turn.

The American government did not send enough troops to Iraq in the invasion. They essentially ignored the opinion of the military on military matters, and all the while civilians were making decisions while not consulting the military who were out on the streets.

[Wild Bill]

The voices you named also warned of plenty of trouble if the attack on Iraq went forward; and the advocates mocked the very idea that there might be, oh, say, an insurgency, or sectarian strife.

The opponents were correct; the war supporters were catastrophiocally mistaken. That some opponents made specific dire predictions that didn't arise is irrelevant; much of what they predicted (while war's supporters called them "supporters of Saddam" and other such nonsense) did occur.

Those who advocated for the war were wrong at nearly every single turn.

So...those who support the attack mainly do so for their "hawkish philosophy"?

Please, WB. I know this is difficult to understand, but it's not a if war advocates remain sober and wise, and opponents are a bunch of pacifists.

And the number of INFORMED opinions among those who support an attack may well be close to zero. You certainly can't argue otherwise, aside from your baffling premise that those who push for war are always sober and just, and those who oppose it are...well, suspect, somehow.

Let's leave aside the "paid by the mullahs" speculative nonsense for the time being; the only people paid for their opinions on this subject that we know of are some high-ranking American officials (Dean, Giuliani, several others) who have been paid to speak on behalf of a terrorist organization (the MEK) who want war with Iran!

But leave that aside, and let's take up your "biased agaisnt Israel" remark, which is your cute little method of bigotry-baiting.

You know, you could turn it around; you might claim that the advocates for the war are "biased against Israel," and hope for things to go badly.

In other words, supporters of the war may well be anti-semites.

Hey, you're the one brought up the hsitory of the second Iraq War, a violent catastrophe which continues top this day.

Riiiiight.

And those throwing tantrums about Iran's imminent destruction of Israel, or how Iran is going to launch missiles willy-nilly all over the globe...sure, these shrieking little pantywaists aren't crying Wolf!" at all!

Hmmm. You do make assumptions, don't you?

Where did I say that the talking heads who support attacking Iran are right? I thought I was merely pointing out that the Doves" had little or no INFORMED opinion!

Why does that imply that any talking head on a network news panel who advocates a strike also has access to valid intel?

I'm talking about how those who keep saying that an attack on Iran would fail have a poor argument and specious history, that's all.

I would expect that the American and Israeli governments have much better intelligence than those tv panelists or pacifist group spokespeople. The same for some scientists, it would seem. Carl Sagan WAS totally wrong, after all!

Iraq did become a cluster screwup but NOT with the invasions! It was politicos like Dick Cheney who screwed up the OCCUPATION of Iraq! I would agree with you that this was a failure but that was never my point in the first place! I was commenting on the likely success of any military invasion.

Cheney always seemed a total idiot to me! After the military had successfully taken over Iraq he decided to disband Iraq's armed forces. What the hell were those soldiers then supposed to do? They no longer had an income! Were they supposed to sit in the dark while they and their families starved? While being nice and quiet and out of sight?

This was a very ignorant and callous move on Cheney's part! It no doubt precipitated much of the subsequent troubles.

If you want to debate if attacking Iran is a politically good idea we have threads already. This one was about how likely a military strike would be successful. I believe it would be, that's all!

Please don't make me your straw man. Just because I disagreed on one point doesn't meant I disagree with you on everything.

[bleeding heart]

The American government did not send enough troops to Iraq in the invasion. They essentially ignored the opinion of the military on military matters, and all the while civilians were making decisions while not consulting the military who were out on the streets.

That may have been part of the problem, yes....and it's another thing the war advocates were so bloody sensitive about: critiscisms of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's cute little war fever-dreams threw the war's supporterts into tizzies. How dare anyone critique these Great, Churchillian men whose only ambition is a world of liberty, etc.

You know, utter, servile bulls*** like that, not to be taken seriously.

Of course, war of aggression in and of itself is problematic, also, regardless of how good or bad the strategy is.

At any rate, Iraq remains a serious disaster zone, even though attention has moved elsewhere.

[Signals.Cpl]

That may have been part of the problem, yes....and it's another thing the war advocates were so bloody sensitive about: critiscisms of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's cute little war fever-dreams threw the war's supporterts into tizzies. How dare anyone critique these Great, Churchillian men whose only ambition is a world of liberty, etc.

You know, utter, servile bulls*** like that, not to be taken seriously.

Of course, war of aggression in and of itself is problematic, also, regardless of how good or bad the strategy is.

At any rate, Iraq remains a serious disaster zone, even though attention has moved elsewhere.

Again, the war in Iraq turned out the way it did because of I would say arrogance or over confidence on the civilian leadership rather then the militaries ability. The the Us military had followed their plan for the invasion I would say that the transition would have gone smoother.

[bleeding heart]

Again, the war in Iraq turned out the way it did because of I would say arrogance or over confidence on the civilian leadership rather then the militaries ability. The the Us military had followed their plan for the invasion I would say that the transition would have gone smoother.

Well, I for one expected it to go more smoothly, which had nothing to do with my opposition to a war of aggression in the first place. What I did predict (not 'cause I'm particularly insightful, but because it seemed obvious) was that things would go badly, later.

[dre]

I think a little mutually assured destruction might do the middle east some good.

And too be honest the world might be a better place if that dump was a 10 foot thick sheet of glass with the odd "oil hole" here and there.

Let them sort out their own shit. I wouldnt pay 5 god damn cents to save Iran and Israel from each other. Fuck em.... Let em fight if they wanna fight or let em make peace if they want to do that. Not my problem.

Edited May 26, 2012 by dre

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, I for one expected it to go more smoothly, which had nothing to do with my opposition to a war of aggression in the first place. What I did predict (not 'cause I'm particularly insightful, but because it seemed obvious) was that things would go badly, later.

It was obvious that the US was going to win, there are few nations on earth who have the resources to stand up to the US in direct combat, what the lack of soldiers did was prevent proper occupation and protection of the country. And then they dismantled the Iraqi Army which was a major mistake although its with the usual 20/20 hindsight.

[socialist]

Iraq could be the wrong message to them though, they could see it as the US playing tough but also as the US unwilling to go to war again.

What I don't get is what do the Iranians hope to accomplish? The US will not let them have nukes and even if the US let them have nukes Israel will never let them... Either way they will never be a nuclear power not for long anyway.

why can the us have nukes but iran cant. i dont get that. why can france have nukes.

[Signals.Cpl]

why can the us have nukes but iran cant. i dont get that. why can france have nukes.

Because the difference between the US and Iran is that the US has not said they want a whole race dead, have not called for the destruction of a nation and its citizens. Letting nations that makes it their national policy to destroy millions of lives have nukes can't possibly end well.

[bud]

double post.

Edited May 27, 2012 by bud

[bud]

Because

everything you said after is a lie. you really suck at being honest.

[bud]

things you brag about in an election year:

According to the U.S. official, the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them on what happened in Baghdad after the talks were over. "We updated the Israelis in detail before we updated our own government," the official said.

link

[Signals.Cpl]

everything you said after is a lie. you really suck at being honest.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

[Jack Weber]

Because the difference between the US and Iran is that the US has not said they want a whole race dead, have not called for the destruction of a nation and its citizens. Letting nations that makes it their national policy to destroy millions of lives have nukes can't possibly end well.

Ah,but you aren't getting "it"...

The reason the leftist fools don't like Israel isn't because they are predisposed to being anti-Semitic (some are,though)...It's because Israel is a "proxy" for the great Capitalist/Imperialist/defeater of the Soviet Union...

The USA...I have my problems with US foreign policy,but I have more problems with Soviet nostalgia lovers...

Edited May 27, 2012 by Jack Weber

[dre]

Ah,but you aren't getting "it"...

The reason the leftist fools don't like Israel isn't because they are predisposed to being anti-Semitic (some are,though)...It's because Israel is a "proxy" for the great Capitalist/Imperialist/defeater of the Soviet Union...

The USA...I have my problems with US foreign policy,but I have more problems with Soviet nostalgia lovers...

Good god, what pap smear.

[bleeding heart]

It was obvious that the US was going to win, there are few nations on earth who have the resources to stand up to the US in direct combat,

I'd say "zero" rather than "few."

what the lack of soldiers did was prevent proper occupation and protection of the country.

It was doomed either way. The intiial fight was won quickly and easily, and then Iraqis were immediately in the streets shouting "Fuck Saddam, Fuck the USA!" The insurgency was immediate also, and (despite the well-oiled propaganda) it was not mostly "terrorists" or "Ba'athist holdovers," but rather a nationalist movement against international aggressors.

The coalition could have had ten times as many personel, and these issues would still have existed. The only difference is that the coalition would have ended up killing more Iraqis, and the terrorists maybe would have killed fewer.

And then they dismantled the Iraqi Army which was a major mistake although its with the usual 20/20 hindsight.

I don't know if it's 20/20 hindsight, because critics were making the case at the time...and were derisively ignored by the little aristocrats in power, and by the little wannabe-aristocrats who defended their every move.

[Signals.Cpl]

I'd say "zero" rather than "few."

In a conventional war, there are some that still will cause problem for the US.

It was doomed either way. The intiial fight was won quickly and easily, and then Iraqis were immediately in the streets shouting "Fuck Saddam, Fuck the USA!" The insurgency was immediate also, and (despite the well-oiled propaganda) it was not mostly "terrorists" or "Ba'athist holdovers," but rather a nationalist movement against international aggressors.

The coalition could have had ten times as many personel, and these issues would still have existed. The only difference is that the coalition would have ended up killing more Iraqis, and the terrorists maybe would have killed fewer.

The whole thing is that if the US and their allies had moved in with the proper number of troops they could have stopped or prevented the looting and destruction, and provided the basic services almost immediately after end of hostilities between the Iraqi army and the US. The US suffered because their top leadership wanted a war on the cheap, if the military advice had been heard and followed then the outcome might be different. Better planning for the post invasion occupation might have been better.

I don't know if it's 20/20 hindsight, because critics were making the case at the time...and were derisively ignored by the little aristocrats in power, and by the little wannabe-aristocrats who defended their every move.

Thats the thing though, everyone has an opinion and everyone voices those opinions but its 20/20 vision because now we know they were wrong. We can blame the British and the French for not stoping world war 2 in 1936, but we have had over 70 years to study the subject and know the importance of the event while at the time they didn't have a clear picture even though there were people on both sides of the argument.

[bleeding heart]

In a conventional war, there are some that still will cause problem for the US.

Sure, I didn't mean to overstate. But we both agree that the US reigns supreme militarily, in most ways, including conventional warfare.

The whole thing is that if the US and their allies had moved in with the proper number of troops they could have stopped or prevented the looting and destruction, and provided the basic services almost immediately after end of hostilities between the Iraqi army and the US.

But this wasn't stupidity. They weren't altruists trying to save a people from a dictator, so the point is moot.

Perhaps things could have been done better, yes, you're probbaly right. But it would still be an awful situaiton.

The US suffered because their top leadership wanted a war on the cheap, if the military advice had been heard and followed then the outcome might be different. Better planning for the post invasion occupation might have been better.

I don't doubt things could have been better--they always can be better. But it was destined to have an insurgency, which after all began immediately.

Thats the thing though, everyone has an opinion and everyone voices those opinions but its 20/20 vision because now we know they were wrong. We can blame the British and the French for not stoping world war 2 in 1936, but we have had over 70 years to study the subject and know the importance of the event while at the time they didn't have a clear picture even though there were people on both sides of the argument.

That's true, but I don't think they're comparable. The coalition were not opposed to dictatorships...they like dictatorships. They were not there to spread democracy; they despise democracy, unless it causes no problems for them. They were not there for humanitarian purposes. So without good intent, I don't see how one could ever do a job with humane outcomes, except maybe now and then by a fluke.

In short, I don't think blaming the Bush administration, and solely them, is quite fair. It's an institutional issue of imperial overreach. The Democrats would have fared just as poorly, though they'd receive, perhaps, more international support from the coterie of international sycophants (which makes up every Eastern European ally in that war, without exception, all of whom went against their public's expressed wishes. Canada too, for that matter, though our leaders were smart enough not to trumpet it to us, and the Americans helped them by not shouting about it either.)

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure, I didn't mean to overstate. But we both agree that the US reigns supreme militarily, in most ways, including conventional warfare.

One that comes to mind is China, with them the US Navy will quickly destroy their Chinese counterpart, and the Airforce and Naval air arm might have a hard time but will eventually prevail, the main reason china can stand up to the Us in a Conventional War is the simple quantity. It applies to other countries with substantial populations as well.

But this wasn't stupidity. They weren't altruists trying to save a people from a dictator, so the point is moot.

Perhaps things could have been done better, yes, you're probbaly right. But it would still be an awful situaiton.

The motive is irrelevant, if they had provided basic services and prevented the looting while keeping the army intact for the most part kept 400,000 armed men from the streets. The main help that the US gave to the insurgents was disbanding the military, as now you had hundreds of thousands of unemployed armed and trained soldiers who had to feed their families one way or another.

I don't doubt things could have been better--they always can be better. But it was destined to have an insurgency, which after all began immediately.

I would disagree, there was a cooling down period when the US was seen as a liberator but all the mistakes added up and eventually the insurgency picked up strength.

That's true, but I don't think they're comparable. The coalition were not opposed to dictatorships...they like dictatorships. They were not there to spread democracy; they despise democracy, unless it causes no problems for them. They were not there for humanitarian purposes. So without good intent, I don't see how one could ever do a job with humane outcomes, except maybe now and then by a fluke.

I'm not talking about dictatorships, I am talking about actions. I can tell you everywhere the US screwed up over the last 10 years, mainly because I have access to more complete information then the people who were making the decisions at the time. The US wanted to move in remove Saddam and leave a stable nation behind, whatever their motives were, that was the goal as it would have done no good for Iraq to collapse.

[bleeding heart]

I would disagree, there was a cooling down period when the US was seen as a liberator but all the mistakes added up and eventually the insurgency picked up strength.

There was a sector of the population that viewed the invasion positively, but it wasn't the country entire; I've seen no evidence that it was anything like a majority, or even a plurality.

Iraqis were no doubt overwhelmingly glad to have the dictator gone, but they understandably didn't trust the dictator's old allies, who had helped fund and diplomatically support their very oppression. And they could look around and see that tyrants, opposed by the populations, were still being supported elsewhere.

Because they are not us, they were never blinded by pretty myths about Western nations fighting tyranny and defending freedom. Those lies are meant for domestic consumption, and peoples of other nations simply don't perceive it that way.

Right from the start, the "Fuck Saddam, Fuck the USA" protests were breaking out. That was before things really went south, and it doesn't sound like any love for the Great Liberators at any rate.

I'm not talking about dictatorships, I am talking about actions. I can tell you everywhere the US screwed up over the last 10 years, mainly because I have access to more complete information then the people who were making the decisions at the time. The US wanted to move in remove Saddam and leave a stable nation behind, whatever their motives were, that was the goal as it would have done no good for Iraq to collapse.

There's no question they wanted stability. That's one of the reasons they supported Saddam, and why the West supports tyrants, terrorists, and the overthrow of democracies generally....for their view of "stability," which doesn't always encompass the victims of this "stability."

[Signals.Cpl]

There was a sector of the population that viewed the invasion positively, but it wasn't the country entire; I've seen no evidence that it was anything like a majority, or even a plurality.

Iraqis were no doubt overwhelmingly glad to have the dictator gone, but they understandably didn't trust the dictator's old allies, who had helped fund and diplomatically support their very oppression. And they could look around and see that tyrants, opposed by the populations, were still being supported elsewhere.

Because they are not us, they were never blinded by pretty myths about Western nations fighting tyranny and defending freedom. Those lies are meant for domestic consumption, and peoples of other nations simply don't perceive it that way.

Right from the start, the "Fuck Saddam, Fuck the USA" protests were breaking out. That was before things really went south, and it doesn't sound like any love for the Great Liberators at any rate.

There's no question they wanted stability. That's one of the reasons they supported Saddam, and why the West supports tyrants, terrorists, and the overthrow of democracies generally....for their view of "stability," which doesn't always encompass the victims of this "stability."

Do you have any source on the protests starting immediately?

And I do know that the US did not have 100% support because Iraq has 3 main groups one of them was bound to be unhappy to lose power. The problems started because there were not enough boots on the ground to provide security, prevent looting, and restart the basic services.

[bleeding heart]

The problems started because there were not enough boots on the ground to provide security, prevent looting, and restart the basic services.

No, the problems started--by definition--because of the invasion in the first palce.