With Barack Obama as commander in chief, the United States should not launch an attack on anyone. He'd just try to talk them to death and then surrender. Under his leadership, France is tougher.
On their nuclear facilities? Possibly, yes.
It's not as if there are a vast number of key facilities. A mere handful of locations would need to be targeted in order to effectively degrade their capabilities.You mean the nuclear facilities scattered throughout all of Iran? Those nuclear facilities?
Let the Saudi's with their client states, Turkey, Egypt and the minors go for it.You mean the nuclear facilities scattered throughout all of Iran? Those nuclear facilities?
It's not as if there are a swath of key facilities. There are but a handful of locations that would need to be targeted in order to effectively degrade their capabilities.
People speak of a strike on Iran like Israel’s against an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and a Syrian facility in 2007. But those were single facilities. Iran, by contrast, has a vast nuclear industry, comprising many installations spread across the country, some close to population centers, others in mountainous terrain. The United States would effectively have to go to war with Iran, destroying its air defenses, then attacking its facilities in dozens — perhaps hundreds — of sorties. The bombers would be equipped with highly explosive weapons, demolishing buildings, reactors and laboratories, but also producing considerable collateral damage.
I know! Obama hasn't even started any wars. What kind of president is he? The *****.
The facts, as told by Fareed Zakaria:
A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option - The Washington Post
:doh Drones are not indiscriminate. In fact, they're among the most precise and humane forms of warfare in the history of mankind.Nonsense, Obama has started drone wars all over the globe. He takes no prisoners and kills lots of civilians because drones are indiscriminate. He does this because the only place he can put prisoners is Gitmo, which he's trying to empty.
Sounds about right, although the term many is a bit of an overstatement. Their nuclear program would not be utterly destroyed by targeted strikes, but rather effectively delayed and hopefully deterred from future exploration. Dempsey has said as much in the past. In either event, attacking their AA capabilities alongside all others necessary to accomplish this task obviously doesn't rise to the level of broad commitment we saw in Iraq, let alone the troop deployment. That's simply fear mongering by Uygur.
Hmm, not sure I'd agree - with B.O. in place to stink up the operation proper,With Barack Obama as commander in chief, the United States should not launch an attack on anyone. He'd just try to talk them to death and then surrender. Under his leadership, France is tougher.
Cenk is absolutely right. The Iraq Invasion was proposed to the American people as a quick operation, costly effectively nothing in the way of blood or treasure. The ONLY people calling for military action against Iran are the SAME EXACT PEOPLE who sold the Iraq War.
Except that those same actors actually advocated an invasion at the time, whereas targeted strikes are what is being proposed by the vast majority today. Claiming that the same result will occur simply because of the commonality of the supporters is intellectually lazy.
What would be the effect of such an attack? When any country is bombed by foreigners, its people tend to rally around the regime. The Islamic Republic would likely gain domestic support. It would also respond in various ways, through its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. The attacks might be directed at U.S. troops or allies.
An attack would also mean the splintering of the international coalition against Iran. Russia, China and many other countries would condemn it. Iran would be seen as the victim of an unprovoked invasion. The sanctions would crumble. Its nuclear program would be devastated, but Iran would begin to rebuild it. Even under the current sanctions regime, Iran makes tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues, more than enough to afford to rebuild its facilities.
Iran is already attacking US troops and allies through proxies and the support of terror groups throughout the regions/ That ship has sailed long ago. Whether or not sanctions could survive the attack is another matter. The degradation of their facilities lessens the need for sanctions in the short term, which have proven to be marginally effective at best to date. The financial capability to rebuild their facilities is less pertinent than the human capital and time necessary to do so. Just how many times will Iran build up their castle if we make it clear we'll knock it down and with successively greater force. My broader point stands however, Cenk is simply fear mongering and being intellectually lazy as usual. An invasion is not a inevitability, nor is a prolonged military campaign. :shrug:You should have followed that link I posted. More from Fareed:
:doh Drones are not indiscriminate. In fact, they're among the most precise and humane forms of warfare in the history of mankind.
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground
You should have followed that link I posted. More from Fareed:
]I question those figures. This is another source that has kept very close track of these attacks:
Pakistan Strikes | The Long War Journal
Check the home page, too--the whole site is very informative.
Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare.
In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack.
In Pakistan, Amnesty International investigated nine suspected U.S. drone strikes that occurred between May 2012 and July 2013 in the territory of North Waziristan. The group said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks.
]
Research isn't finding a website that agrees with you.
Here's the issue with the American drone wars, and there are many more countries in which the strikes have been conducted than Pakistan. Our intelligence is poor and our reaction time is slow in countries like Yemen and Somolia where we have no great military presence. We get information from locals which often consists of person x in house y, with no information about non combatants in the same house. Often the intelligence is used by locals to settle personal scores.
Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say - The Washington Post
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?