Prominent neocon calls for US/Israeli attack on Iran and regime change

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Mar 26, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    These idiots never, ever learn. Note how Fox News-darling John Bolton-who avoided military service during Vietnam--conveniently avoids suggesting how the U.S. could possibly occupy a nation three times larger than Iraq. Or maybe he believes we can effect regime change via airpower alone?

    Bolton seems to believe we can destroy Iran's deeply dug-in and widely dispersed nuke facility via a single air raid, like the IAF did in 1981 against Iraq's one single nuclear site. Another neocon cakewalk.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Couple this with flip flopper President wannabe Rand Paul who is calling for a 16% increase to defense (that's $190 billion) with substantial cuts to U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.

    Yes, let's **** up some more countries while we sit by and watch our wither away.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    they don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we interfere with theirs.

    ----------

    is Hitlary or anyone else talking about ending the war?
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    The same John Bolton that Bush recess-appointed as Ambassador to the UN?

    A single air raid? Much like how Bush said that the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq would be short?

    Why are crazies like him being given air time? I mean, thieves and con artists have more credibility than this guy; at least they are honest in their treachery.

    BL.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    What did Obama said? no boots on the ground? how long did that last?
     
  6. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #6
    [​IMG]

    The only question is who will they want to bomb next?
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    change Iran to Libya/Syria and bush to Obama:D
     
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #8
    I have to wonder if John Bolton has stopped to consider how very difficult it would be for even the United States, with its massive military capability, to destroy Iran's nuclear capability through an air attack.

    How would it be done?

    The only (non nuclear) ordnance we have capable of destroying targets buried underground are so called "bunker buster" bombs. These have to be dropped by manned aircraft.

    Ah, but we've got aircraft carriers! Yes - but a glimpse at the map says that any aircraft launched from carriers would have to be based in the Iranian Gulf. Meaning the ships would have to pass through the Straits of Hormuz. Where they would be well within range of Iranian anti-ship guided missiles. And if the US was bombing Iran from those ships, I think the Iranians would have more than a little justification at shooting at them.

    How about ground-based aircraft. What country in the Middle East would want to host US Airforce units that were launching an unprovoked attack on a regional Muslim country. Even Saudi Arabia (which thoroughly loathes the Shia Iranians) would blanch at that prospect.

    Would Britain or Germany or Italy welcome US airforce planes taking off from bases there, to go and bomb Iran just to mollify John Bolton; Bibi Netanyahu; and Sean Hannity?

    I don't think so.

    Its not every day that something I read in the New York Times makes me boil with anger. But John Bolton's guest op-ed this morning made me realize the fact that NeoCons in this country are borderline insane.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Only borderline?
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    well, that would depend on which side of the border they are looked upon :p
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    Not that it would be a good idea to try, but during the Gulf war we flew some B-52s from Louisiana, hit targets in Iraq, and flew back to the US. And I believe in one of our more recent exercises with South Korea we flew stealth bombers from the US, hit targets in Korea, and flew them back without ever landing. So the range is there, and assuming we actually know where they all are we could destroy the targets from bases in the US. The problem comes in with what do you do after that, and I don't think any of the people who are advocating war with Iran have spent much time thinking about that.
     
  12. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #12
    True of most wars. Inherent in war is a possibility that something unexpected may happen.

    Colin Powell, interview, April 2007 Atlantic Magazine.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
     
  13. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #13
    The nuclear bomb is an old WWII era weapon that's been obsolete for several years now. If Iran was a threat, they would've been taken out a long time ago. Iran is not a threat. The U.S. has technology that is far more superior which can destroy missile deployed nuclear weapons in mere seconds. The neocons that are calling for war are kept out of the loop.
     
  14. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #14
    That's the part the NEOCONS leave out...the Iranians have no delivery system.

    And if Israel is concerned about the fabled suitcase nuke, then they need to get on that. This is not our fight.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    Thats true.

    But the circumstances - and the target here - are very different.

    For one thing, the B52 would not be able to operate under any circumstances against Iran without the US first conducting an extensive suppression of air defense operation. We're talking probably hundreds of sorties to take out Iran's radar and SAM missiles. And the command-and-control infrastructrure that run it. And I think even the Neocons would concede its a bit of a jump from their (purely fantasy world) idea of a "surgical strike" designed to eliminate Iran's nuclear assets - and widespread operations against the Iranian military in general.

    Where would the planes conducting those operations be based? I can't see flying F16s from the US to Iran and back, night after night, for weeks at a time. How do you provide combat search and rescue if one of those planes goes down? Or do you just hand the pilots a suicide pill and tell them that the best they can hope for is a lifetime in an Iranian prison if they get shot down?

    It is theoretically possible that B2 Stealth bombers could launch raids, supported by multiple in-air refueling rendezvous. But to destroy enough of Iran's nuclear assets would take probably dozens - if not hundreds - of sorties. Putting an incredible burden on the B2's aircrews and support assets. And while the B2 is stealthy, its not invincible. Run enough sorties, and the chances begin to grow that the Iranians will start inflicting casualties.

    Its one thing to do a "one night" operation. You have the element of surprise, you (hopefully) destroy the target. And you launch a diplomatic and PR blitz the next day, basically presenting the world with a fait accompli of a destroyed illegal weapons facility. But that wouldn't happen in Iran. It would have to be an operation conducted over several days, if not weeks or months. All the while 99% of the world keeps asking why the US is again attacking a Muslim nation unprovoked.

    No: The more you look at the realities of what an air campaign launched solely against Iran's nuclear assets would entail - and the more like madness the idea becomes.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16
    Yet another reason to secure our borders, lest these cretins get out. Wait, what?
     
  17. decafjava macrumors 68000

    decafjava

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Geneva
    #17
    Not just yes but HELL yes. Why none of our brainless leaders understand that is a mystery to me. I include as a Canadian "our" PM Harper too.

    I have to wish we would undertake regime change at home. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #18
    You think wrong.

    ----------

    Can you post the source?
     
  19. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #19

    Sure can.



    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
     
  20. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #20
    Thx
    I also found it:
    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/ran...f_principle_turned_into_a_generic_politician/
    The US foreign aid budget should be exactly 0, but increasing military spending is just weird.
    I was hoping Paul would follow his father, but I have to wait how he wants to justifiy this move. Looks as if he is just another turd.

    If Rand Paul is compromissed, there is nobody left to vote for.
    The US is done.
     
  21. juanm, Mar 27, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2015

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #21
    Yeah, right, because before he made a lot of sense... :rolleyes:

    Edit: you can always vote for Tony Northrup, while you're at it. :p
     
  22. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #22
    You really are obsessed with Tony Northrup, aren't you?

    Silver hair, smooth voice - the sexiest nerd alive. :)
     
  23. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #23
    Is there any factual justification for such a nickname or are you just falling into the right wing camp of spinning everything for misrepresentation and political advantage?
     
  24. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #24
    She voted fo the patriot act.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    Which is the same thing that Hitler did.

    Gee. Thanks for clearing up that confusion.
     

Share This Page