Ken Chaddock wrote:
....
This guy also seems to ignore

As preamble I have a practical understanding of it and its limitations.

the US's truly prodigious capability to move people and goods by air...

And if you look it you will discover it is all shock force troops to hold an
area until the bulk of the troops arrive by conventional means. You will also
learn it is a fair weather capability and anyone can download satellite images
and predict the weather.

which the Iranians would have
virtually no ability to block...also the US's ability to rain
destruction onto Iran from above...even without going nuclear...which,
if "properly" implemented (don't hit civilian targets at all and stay
away from military targets that have a higher probability of collateral
damage) against the Iranian military only...would tend to destabilize
the mullahs and either destroy Iran's ability to make war OR bottle the
Iranian armed forces up in their cities...

The destruction from above would play well at home and it might even be true
that no civilians were harmed. But in the middle east it will be portrayed as
targeting civilians and everyone there will believe it. Look at what Americans
still believe about WWII if you don't think that will happen.

As for aerial bombing I repeat, it failed in Germany during WWII. It increased
not decreased the will to resist. It has increased the will to resist every time
it has been tried. Both Vietnams, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Serbia you name it. It
has always been troops on the ground that have been the deciding factor. For the
US in Afghanistan it was the alliance with the drug lords and their mercenaries
that provided the troops.

Why in the world would you talk about bottling up Iranian troops in the cities
as troops are not stationed in cities in the first place? In any confrontation
they would be augmenting the Shia in the south and east of Iraq cutting off the
land resupply from Kuwait. There is no way the US has the ability to air supply
what is brought in from Kuwait. And if that is tried ****loads of shoulder fired
AA rockets are going to find their way into Iraq to bring them down.

Am I pessimistic? The last I heard planes landing at Baghdad airport still
spiral in to avoid fire from the ground. Last I heard which was only six months
ago the FIVE MILES of city street from the airport to the Green Zone still is
NOT secured.

Please tell me how all this is suddenly going to turn around.

If the mullahs could be shown to be ineffective against the US while
at the same time being hammered relentlessly militarily and causing "a
little" discomfort to the Iranian people only, the mullahs will lose
credibility with their own people and would likely be overthrown...from
within.

And that is on the assumption that Iranians are really Americans trying to get
out from under the religious leadership. If they are overthrown they will be
replaced by some group that is more effective against the American attacks. That
is exactly what Americans would do if this country were under attack and losing
because of incompetent leadership. Why do you assume Iranians would do
differently from Americans?

Remember, the only place in the Muslim world where there were
spontaneous demonstrations of SORROW and SADNESS and in SUPPORT of the
US after 9/11 was in IRANIAN cities...for God sake, built of that, don't
squander it like Bush senior and Bush junior did in Iraq...

It was squandered on Iran when the US attacked Afghanistan three months after
9/11 without justification and based upon a war announced in MARCH 2001.

It was not the only place. Despite the Zionists lies the Palestinians also
expressed sympathy while Netanyahu said 9/11 was a good thing for Israel.

--
Before the Iraq war Brad Pitt was ridiculed for filming kite flying in
Baghdad. Looks like he was right.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3730
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11