Romney Open to Iran 'Bombardment'

Tsunami

Tsunami

Active member
Oct 25 12:47 PM US/Eastern
By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

The former Massachusetts governor's comments came as the Bush administration announced new sanctions designed to isolate the government in Tehran. Romney applauded the move, while several Democratic presidential contenders spoke out against it—and used it as an opportunity to criticize front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: "I learned a clear lesson from the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002: If you give this president an inch, he will take a mile and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson."
Clinton voted last month for legislation sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, the only Democratic senator running for president who did so. Edwards and other critics say the measure could pave the way toward American military action there.
In a statement Thursday, presidential rival Chris Dodd echoed Edwards' argument.
"The aggressive actions taken today by the administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran," Dodd said.
Romney, who has been advocating a hard line against Iran throughout his presidential campaign, said military action would be necessary if severe economic and diplomatic sanctions don't convince Iranian leaders to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
The Iranian government contends its program is aimed toward providing nuclear power.
"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us," Romney told a crowd of doctors and nurses during a question period that followed a health care speech.
He added: "That's an option that's on the table. And it's is not something which we'll spell out specifically. I really can't lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options from blockade to bombardment of some kind. And that's something we very much have to keep on the table, and we will ready ourselves to be able to take, because, frankly, I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."
Last year, while still governor, Romney refused to provide a security escort or any state services in support of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who visited Massachusetts to speak at Harvard University.
In January, Romney traveled to a security conference in Israel, where he called for economic sanctions against Iran similar to those against South Africa during its apartheid period.
Subsequently, he has called for indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for saying "Israel's Zionist regime should be wiped off the map." Romney suggested using the U.N.'s Genocide Convention against the leader on charges of inciting genocide.
In September, he also chastised Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus, and railed against the Iranian leader after he asked to visit ground zero.
-----
The more I hear from this guy, the more I like him...
:firedevi:
 
Iran isn't Iraq. They are well trained and highly motivated nationalistic military.

Read the exploits of the Iran-Iraq war. Much of the way they fight is similar of the Japanese in the Pacific. They'll fight tooth and nail to the death. Like the Japanese they will use suicide tactics to stop an advance.

Furthermore, Some of the weapons in their arsenal are nasty, thanks to our Russian friends. For example, they own the Russian Sunburn which is specifically designed to sink aircraft carriers, and they are nearly impossible to stop thanks to its supersonic speed. Do you remember the USS Stark when it was nearly blown in half by an Exocet? The Sunburn makes the Exocet look like a firecracker on July 4. Do you think they wont use them? If we attack Iran, Iran will fight back. If a bunch of goat herders are causing so much havoc in Iraq, what do you think an Army protecting on its own soil will do? They are the 3rd strongest

And Finally attacking Iran will do the one thing we don't want. It will strengthen the political position of both Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs as all their political opponents will rally to them to defend their country. Attacking Iran would be the biggest gift we could give the Mullahs. Osama bin Laden still sends a fruit-basket to the WH on the anniversary of they day they attacked Iraq.

Don't you think with 2 wars already on Full Boil, that isn't already enough? Its time we learn from past mistakes, not keep repeating them.

I would strongly advise against this course of action, at least for right now.
 
Last edited:
Raids against specific targets is probably the way we should have gone in the first place.
Iran's Army may be better than the Iraqi Army but that doesn't mean they're not going to get their butts kicked on a 1 on 1 conventional duke out.
Their stuff is crap even compared to most of RoK armament but I tell you, if the US and South Korea went to war against each other, South Korea's defense network will be picked apart clean within a matter of a week or two and all that'll be left would be a bunch of confused infantry units unable to talk to each other.
The same will go for Iran.
To do this though, there HAS to be international backing. Can't do another Iraq anymore. The rift between the West and the Islamic world would become bigger but there just may be no way around that at this point. Sometimes these things are unavoidable and you just have to face them. Every day life has such things as well. You have to decide between a bad decision and an even worse decision. But again, not unilaterally.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Raids against specific targets is probably the way we should have gone in the first place.
Iran's Army may be better than the Iraqi Army but that doesn't mean they're not going to get their butts kicked on a 1 on 1 conventional duke out.
Their stuff is crap even compared to most of RoK armament but I tell you, if the US and South Korea went to war against each other, South Korea's defense network will be picked apart clean within a matter of a week or two and all that'll be left would be a bunch of confused infantry units unable to talk to each other.
The same will go for Iran.
To do this though, there HAS to be international backing. Can't do another Iraq anymore. The rift between the West and the Islamic world would become bigger but there just may be no way around that at this point. Sometimes these things are unavoidable and you just have to face them. Every day life has such things as well. You have to decide between a bad decision and an even worse decision. But again, not unilaterally.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we would lose, what I am saying is that it would be very costly.
And it would go on forever in a counter-insurgency campaign. It would also have the potential to ignite the entire Middle East as Iran would certainly attack Israel, and Israel would certainly respond, Then Arabs would almost certainly get involved, in order to settle old scores and Turkey would use the opportunity to deal with its 'Kurdish' issue once and for all.


More costly than what we are paying now. Doubly so given our already weakened state.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Raids against specific targets is probably the way we should have gone in the first place.
Iran's Army may be better than the Iraqi Army but that doesn't mean they're not going to get their butts kicked on a 1 on 1 conventional duke out.
Their stuff is crap even compared to most of RoK armament but I tell you, if the US and South Korea went to war against each other, South Korea's defense network will be picked apart clean within a matter of a week or two and all that'll be left would be a bunch of confused infantry units unable to talk to each other.
The same will go for Iran.
To do this though, there HAS to be international backing. Can't do another Iraq anymore. The rift between the West and the Islamic world would become bigger but there just may be no way around that at this point. Sometimes these things are unavoidable and you just have to face them. Every day life has such things as well. You have to decide between a bad decision and an even worse decision. But again, not unilaterally.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say we would lose, what I am saying is that it would be very costly,
More costly than what we are paying now. Doubly so, given our already weakened state.

And for what? the Mullahs aren't stupid, they are not going to risk a nuclear war with the USA, and they are not going to give it to somebody who will either. What do they gain by doing so? Aside from their own total annihilation nothing.

Thats why the Bush talking points about the Iranian threat to the USA make no sense. They have nothing to gain by such action.

A military conflict would go on forever in a counter-insurgency campaign. It would also have the potential to ignite the entire Middle East as Iran would certainly attack Israel, and Israel would certainly respond back, then Arabs (at least Syria) would almost certainly get involved, in order to settle old scores and Turkey would use the opportunity to deal with its 'Kurdish' issue once and for all.

So it has all the potential from going from bad to worse in a very short amount of time.

UPDATE

I saw this on the WP. Its a pretty good article. Its all about keeping a cooler head concerning Iran.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...a/2007/10/president_bush_needs_a_time_ou.html
 
Last edited:
I am not saying its time to open another front, not with Iraq and Afghanistan still being reconstructed. Strategic strikes would work, but that may lead to who knows what?
Concerning the Iranian army - I submit there is not another army on the face of the Earth that can go force on force with our armed forces. These past two conflicts have provided a plethora of seasoned NCO's. While our equipment is a bit beatup - I am of the opinion we have enough to knock out the Revolutionary Guard should they get the itch to invade Iraq.
 
Tsunami said:
I am not saying its time to open another front, not with Iraq and Afghanistan still being reconstructed. Strategic strikes would work, but that may lead to who knows what?
Concerning the Iranian army - I submit there is not another army on the face of the Earth that can go force on force with our armed forces. These past two conflicts have provided a plethora of seasoned NCO's. While our equipment is a bit beatup - I am of the opinion we have enough to knock out the Revolutionary Guard should they get the itch to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Have you read where the Iran sites are located? They are under a Mountain called [SIZE=-1]Siah Kooh[/SIZE], several miles down. The entrance tunnel is supposed to be 6 meters across in diameter. It is a tremendously large complex. The Iranians learned the Lesson from the 1986 air strike against Saddam). No conventional Bomb or Missile will be enough. Unless the AF has a new secret toy,
nothing short of a Nuclear bomb is going to penetrate that rock. Whose willing to be the first President to drop a nuke in war since Nagasaki? I doubt even Bush wants to go that far.

On top of it, the Iranians would respond. They might not win but they would sure not let an attack on their sovereignty go unchallenged. Expect to take serious counterattack especially in the Persian Gulf. We nearly lost both the USS Stark and USS Cole in the same area. And those were with weapons considered primitive by todays standard. Do you want to lose a Nimitz class? You can be sure the AD operators on board aren't going to get much sleep if the shooting starts.

Suppose Iran does get a bomb. What do they do next? The is only one way they could use it, and thats to repel an invasion. They gain no benefit doing anything else.

They Nuke someone, they get nuked back 1000x worse.
The give it to a terrorist who nukes someone, see above.

Its a 'wooden rifle' -a weapon they cannot use.
 
Last edited:
What was the tune McCain carried a couple of months back:
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!
I was unaware we had all this intelligence data floating around the forums, what 3 letter agency am I dealing with hear? The D*C?
:angel:
 
Tsunami said:
What was the tune McCain carried a couple of months back:
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!
I was unaware we had all this intelligence data floating around the forums, what 3 letter agency am I dealing with hear? The D*C?
:angel:
Click to expand...

Didn't you see McCain polls after he made that song? They bombed!

Its not intelligence, its public knowledge. The info came from a Iranian dissident group that went to the media, whom Ahmadinejab later sentenced to death in absentia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top