Arkansas politician - bombing Iran will only take a few days

[Borgholio]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/ ... index.html

Washington (CNN)A U.S. military campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities would only take "several days" of bombing, Sen. Tom Cotton said Tuesday.

Cotton, the Arkansas Republican freshman who has emerged as a leading critic of President Barack Obama's effort to strike a deal to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, told the Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio that Obama's assertion that the alternative to the pact is war is a "false choice."

"This president has a bad habit of accusing other people of making false choices, but he presented the ultimate false choice last week when he said it's either this deal or war," he said in comments first noted by BuzzFeed News.

"He's the one that said for years no deal is better than a bad deal, but he seems to have repudiated that position," Cotton said.

Cotton, a U.S. Army veteran, was the lead author of a now-infamous letter warning Iran that Congress could abandon the deal once Obama leaves office. It was signed by 47 Republicans, infuriating the White House.

The Obama administration and the leaders of five other countries -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia -- recently announced the "framework" of a deal that will give Iran relief from Western economic sanctions. In exchange, the Middle Eastern country will reduce its number of centrifuges and the extent to which it enriches uranium and allow increased inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Obama has called it the best option to prevent war with Iran, and has argued his administration should be able to implement it without the approval of Congress -- where Republicans, taking cues from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have expressed skepticism.

Cotton said a military campaign against Iran -- which Obama has said he wants to avoid -- wouldn't be a full-scale war.

Instead, he said, it would look much like 1998's Operation Desert Fox, during which the United States and United Kingdom bombed Iraq for four days after it failed to comply with United Nations inspection requirements.

"Even if military action were required -- and we certainly should have kept the credible threat of military force on the table throughout which always improves diplomacy -- the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq. That's simply not the case," Cotton said.

"It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox: Several days air and naval bombing against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior -- for interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we're asking is that the president simply be as tough as in the protection of America's national security interest as Bill Clinton was."

Is there a full moon only in Arkansas lately or what?

[Broomstick]

I think it might be something in the water.

Seriously, Arkansas is full of weird lately.

[Baffalo]

... god damnit. I knew I didn't like Tom Cotton, and this just confirms it.

[Mr Bean]

Let me count the stupid
1. Did Cotton factor in one of the largest anti-air networks in the world and an intact, trained and motivated enemy airforce into his four day bombing campaign.

2. Did Cotton neglect the fact that Iran possess a land border with the places we will be launching these attacks from (Iraq), tens of thousands of friendly troops (The militias) and an intact and active military?

3. Did Cotton assume that Iran would simply sit there and take the bombings without retaliation of any kind?

I know Cotton is saying this for his base, it's obvious in the way he talks and the way this was phrased that it was not meant to get beyond the right wing base. Any other overlap will simply be used to raise money off of. But this remains stupid.

[Baffalo]

Tom Cotton built his entire power base around a raging hate-boner for Iran. I don't know why, but he hates Iran in ways that make me wonder if there's something he's covering up that, when it comes to light, is going to just devestate his chances. Like a gay Persian lover.

It's reasons like this that just pissed me off when I saw this where, surrounded by good food and awesome signature dishes, Arkansas' single contribution was god damned Meth Cookies.

Does anyone have a couch I can sleep on?

[Elheru Aran]

I thought we had no troops left in Iraq other than a token presence mainly tasked with guarding the US diplomatic front there? And that our closest air bases are in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan? I could certainly be wrong on that, though...

Baffalo: Any family outside the state? My wife's mom's folks are from there, but we live in Georgia, just as an example... (not that Georgia is much better but at least we're in the Atlanta area so we aren't *totally* red)

[Mr Bean]

I thought we had no troops left in Iraq other than a token presence mainly tasked with guarding the US diplomatic front there? And that our closest air bases are in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan? I could certainly be wrong on that, though...

Attacks on Iran would come from Kuwait, Turkey or Afghanistan/Pakistan most likely but said attacks are vulnerable to being attacked in turn. Heck an attack on Kuwait could be launched and fighters returned inside an hour, simply put unless we are willing to throw half our air force at the issue, they will be able to achieve local numerical superiority and if your the American president are you willing to lose forty planes and large scale rioting and the overthrow of the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments in exchange for the destruction of two sites and and the elimination of the Iraian airforce?

Also keep in mind... thanks to the Caspian sea if Russian wants to test new hardware against American plans it would not be hard to as was done in the past during previous conflicts swap older Iranian weaponry for shinny new Russian equipment.

[Irbis]

disobeying Security Council resolutions

What fucking resolutions?

Last time I checked, UN agreed on Article 41 measures, let me quote "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures". Read - sanctions. Is that imbecile so illiterate he doesn't understand meaning of 'not involving'? Or is his grunt brain so corrupted by US Army worship he thinks it's above international law?

I thought we had no troops left in Iraq other than a token presence mainly tasked with guarding the US diplomatic front there? And that our closest air bases are in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan? I could certainly be wrong on that, though...

Isn't there anti-ISIS training force and unit safeguarding and distributing US arms deliveries now? Plus talks on new US base?

[FTeik]

Since when does a proper Republican care about the UN or the Security Council?

[Borgholio]

Or is his grunt brain so corrupted by US Army worship he thinks it's above international law?

Since when does a proper Republican care about the UN or the Security Council?

Republicans hate the UN and think that American law should take precedence over other nations. So I would not be surprised if most of the GOP fails to understand even how the system works.

[Baffalo]

Baffalo: Any family outside the state? My wife's mom's folks are from there, but we live in Georgia, just as an example... (not that Georgia is much better but at least we're in the Atlanta area so we aren't *totally* red)

I don't trust most of my family. It's best we not get into all that.

Or is his grunt brain so corrupted by US Army worship he thinks it's above international law?

Since when does a proper Republican care about the UN or the Security Council?

Republicans hate the UN and think that American law should take precedence over other nations. So I would not be surprised if most of the GOP fails to understand even how the system works.

Oh they care... so long as they can turn what the UN does to work for them. The UN passes a resolution that might in some way hurt America's interests? The UN is a horrible one-world government trying to take away YOUR RIGHT to be an American! The UN wants to deploy troops to aid a suffering nation? They're trying to use US troops against our will!

Now, having said that, no politician in their right mind would dare ignore the implications of another world power or group, not without leaving themselves open to being blind-sided. Republicans probably keep as many tabs on the UN as Democrats do, if only so that their leadership can plan long-term strategy and make use of the UN just as any Democrat would. It's all a power game, and while they know how the system works, they rely on ignorance and fear to sway the vote. After all, the Republicans tout themselves as the "Remember the Good Old Days?" party, and know their voter base is going to see America first and foremost, even if they have some respect for the UN.

Really, it's sort of like opening up a business in a town with competition. Your rivals are doing everything they can to win over people, and you're doing everything you can. You study your competition, note what they do and don't do, see what works for you and them, and you work off that. There's enough business to keep both of you going, but you want it all. In this analogy, the Democrats are the ones who support more services, but they charge a lot more, and send things off to be done. The Republicans would be the ones who offer more basic services for a lot less, and appeal to people who want their things local. Both have their appeal, and they're going to do things you might not like, but that's simply how it works. You need the service, and you just have to decide which one is the one for you.

[whackadoodle]

Tom Cotton built his entire power base around a raging hate-boner for Iran. I don't know why, but he hates Iran in ways that make me wonder if there's something he's covering up that, when it comes to light, is going to just devestate his chances. Like a gay Persian lover.

Nah, he's just playing to his base, most of whom are some flavor conservative Protestant. Whom, as a group, have somehow gotten it into their noggins that it is their Christian duty to defend Israel. Also, don't forget that with Republicans, every day is Opposite Day as regards the Oval Office. What with Bibi over here recently playing the game of "Let's you and him fight" and the administration's efforts to work out a bargain with Iran, the good Senator is just trying to stand out from the pack.

That, and for most Americans, left and right, politics is just another place to practice boosterism, with little to no understanding of the actual issues at hand.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Iranians will mine the Straits of Hormuz, oil will go to 200 dollars a barrel, the Iranians will launch a conventional invasion through Iraq into Saudi Arabia to destroy the east coast oil infrastructure, where the local population are brutally oppressed Shia who will rise up in happiness at their salvation from the brutal Saudi jackboot, and we will have no troops in place because that would give them warning to disperse the nuclear assets before the airstrikes. We'd run out of smart bombs, and have to start conventionally bombing, and we'd end up re-instituting the draft and garrisoning five countries by the time it was done.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would the Iranians do that knowing it would mean the complete destruction of their regime if not the nation itself?

And frankly, I suspect that a war on that scale would turn nuclear before it was over.

[Purple]

If america goes up against Iran than everyone in Iran would know full well that it would mean the complete destruction of their regime if not the nation itself. So what do they have to lose?

[LapsedPacifist]

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

And yet we still wouldn't have a core of officers, officials, or MPA students who could speak the language in any of those countries.

[The Romulan Republic]

If america goes up against Iran than everyone in Iran would know full well that it would mean the complete destruction of their regime if not the nation itself. So what do they have to lose?

A limited bombing campaign to destroy the nuclear capability would not mean the destruction of the Iranian regime. Retaliating with all out war would. Of course, nationalistic pride and anger might demand such retaliation, but reason and self-preserveration would argue against it.

[Mr Bean]

If america goes up against Iran than everyone in Iran would know full well that it would mean the complete destruction of their regime if not the nation itself. So what do they have to lose?

A limited bombing campaign to destroy the nuclear capability would not mean the destruction of the Iranian regime. Retaliating with all out war would. Of course, nationalistic pride and anger might demand such retaliation, but reason and self-preserveration would argue against it.

The shear size and scope of the Iranian facilities means we need to throw hundreds (Like as in half our airforce) at the targets in question if we want to "get it done in a few days". And the scope will involve everything from knocking down the Iranian SAM network to destroying their airforce as an effective fighting force.

This is not something you can sneak a few stealth bombers in to drop bombs unless said bombs are atomic. Iran has to many nuclear sites in to many locations to dug in.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Let me count the stupid
1. Did Cotton factor in one of the largest anti-air networks in the world and an intact, trained and motivated enemy airforce into his four day bombing campaign.

2. Did Cotton neglect the fact that Iran possess a land border with the places we will be launching these attacks from (Iraq), tens of thousands of friendly troops (The militias) and an intact and active military?

3. Did Cotton assume that Iran would simply sit there and take the bombings without retaliation of any kind?

I know Cotton is saying this for his base, it's obvious in the way he talks and the way this was phrased that it was not meant to get beyond the right wing base. Any other overlap will simply be used to raise money off of. But this remains stupid.

1.) No.

2.) No.

3.) Yes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

TRR, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? Even if we destroy the regime, the regime has won because now all the oppressed Shia in the region will have risen up, will have distributed arms, and will see the Islamic Republic ideology as their liberating saviour from Sunni oppression. How do we put the shattered egg of Saudiland back together? We don't. The gulf is ruled by minorities of Sunni aristocrats who import foreigners to swamp the local Shia peasantry, who regard Iran as a prospective savior. If they break apart the existing regimes, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be reassembling them into American clients at the end. We may produce a simulcra of democracy in Iran and the Gulf, but at the end of the day, a group of Iran-leaning Shia democracies will still replace the existing regimes. Even if we "win", we'd lose, assuming we weren't able to stop them from occupying eastern Saudiland. Of course there's a fair shot we would destroy their tank columns as they're cutting through Kuwait, but in that case it's honestly questionable that we'd invade Iran. We didn't invade Iraq when it invaded Kuwait the first time, so taking the risk may still look pretty good regardless. And the pressure to retaliate against the American attacks would be overwhelming. Iranians are much more secular and practical than their rulers are--but like Americans, they're also very patriotic.

[Simon_Jester]

Would the Iranians do that knowing it would mean the complete destruction of their regime if not the nation itself?

At no point in the process are the Iranians doing anything that would justify us retaliating with a nation-destroying attack. Making oil expensive, dropping mines, and invading where half of the people actively want to be invaded are not offenses punishable by genocide.

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.

And frankly, I suspect that a war on that scale would turn nuclear before it was over.

Who would we fire the nukes at? Because none of the countries I think Duchess is referring to are nuclear powers or have close friends that are. Unless one of them is Pakistan of course, and I don't think that's the case.

[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 ...

[Purple]

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?

[Baffalo]

I'd like to share with you a quote from my grandfather today:

We like Tom Cotton. Hell, we paid money to his campaign, and they're setting him up to be president!

Thought everyone could use a chuckle at that.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? Even if we destroy the regime, the regime has won because now all the oppressed Shia in the region will have risen up, will have distributed arms, and will see the Islamic Republic ideology as their liberating saviour from Sunni oppression. How do we put the shattered egg of Saudiland back together? We don't. The gulf is ruled by minorities of Sunni aristocrats who import foreigners to swamp the local Shia peasantry, who regard Iran as a prospective savior. If they break apart the existing regimes, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be reassembling them into American clients at the end. We may produce a simulcra of democracy in Iran and the Gulf, but at the end of the day, a group of Iran-leaning Shia democracies will still replace the existing regimes. Even if we "win", we'd lose, assuming we weren't able to stop them from occupying eastern Saudiland. Of course there's a fair shot we would destroy their tank columns as they're cutting through Kuwait, but in that case it's honestly questionable that we'd invade Iran. We didn't invade Iraq when it invaded Kuwait the first time, so taking the risk may still look pretty good regardless. And the pressure to retaliate against the American attacks would be overwhelming. Iranians are much more secular and practical than their rulers are--but like Americans, they're also very patriotic.

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.

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?