Was a US invasion of Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis ever actually realistic, and, if so, how exactly? Also, what exactly would the consequences of this have been?

On 6/4/21 9:32 PM, WolfBear wrote:

> Was a US invasion of Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis ever actually realistic...

No. The US was still mired in the reaction to the Vietnam fiasco.

>... and, if so, how exactly?

If "Iran" (the Ayatollah and the radicals) had murdered some of
captured diplomats (gruesomely, in public), and then demanded
ransoms for the others... _And_ sponsored anti-US terror attacks
outside Iran (say against US nationals employed in Saudi Arabia
or other Gulf States, or US military personnel posted in Turkey)...

> Also, what exactly would the consequences of this have been?

_Exactly_? You don't expect much do you?

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

> Rich Rostrom
> > WolfBear
>
> >... and, if so, how exactly?
>
> If "Iran" (the Ayatollah and the radicals) had murdered some of
> captured diplomats (gruesomely, in public), and then demanded
> ransoms for the others... _And_ sponsored anti-US terror attacks
> outside Iran (say against US nationals employed in Saudi Arabia
> or other Gulf States, or US military personnel posted in Turkey)...

If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.

And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,
it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
they can actually put up a fight.

The Iranians (and other Muslims) would then likely carry out all kinda
terrorist attacks, not just against the U.S. but on any nation who had
been on board with the attack or even helped out (i.e. NATO, the Saudis,
Turks and Israelis).

Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…

On 6/5/21 8:15 PM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
> I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
> would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.

The challenge was to provoke a a US invasion, not just bombing.

> the Iranians are U.S. trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and
> unlike Arab militaries, they can actually put up a fight.

The Iranian airforce was largely composed of men loyal to the Shah
(especially officers, and especially pilots).

While that loyalty didn't translate into action against the Islamic
revolution, the Ayatollahs made sure it never could by purging the
air force of any suspected dissenters. This effectively destroyed
the air force as a functioning organization.

Also, as noted, Iran's aircraft were US-made, which meant that there
would be no spare parts or even consumables.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Rich Rostrom
>>> WolfBear
>>
>>>... and, if so, how exactly?
>>
>> If "Iran" (the Ayatollah and the radicals) had murdered some of
>> captured diplomats (gruesomely, in public), and then demanded
>> ransoms for the others... _And_ sponsored anti-US terror attacks
>> outside Iran (say against US nationals employed in Saudi Arabia
>> or other Gulf States, or US military personnel posted in Turkey)...
>
> If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
> I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
> would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.

With elite troops, I can see raids.

>
> And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,

Although it would be directed at the command and control center of the
Iranian government, it would not be in the interest of the U.S. to destroy
the Iran nation. It needs someone to negotiate with unless it intends to do
a George Brush in Iraq.

> it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
> captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
> trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
> they can actually put up a fight.

The Iranian airforce was waorse than Iraq, in fact much worse. There was
little loss of U.S. pilots in Iraq.

>
> The Iranians (and other Muslims) would then likely carry out all kinda
> terrorist attacks,

Which happened anyway.

> not just against the U.S. but on any nation who had
> been on board with the attack or even helped out (i.e. NATO, the Saudis,
> Turks and Israelis).

It is safer to hit someone claiming that they are a U.S. ally than the U.S.
directly.

>
> Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…

If it fails maybe not.

> SolomonW
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
> > I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
> > would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.
>
> With elite troops, I can see raids.

Sure, though U.S. Special Operations Command didn’t exist yet at that point,
(each branch had it's own units doing their own thing) in fact it's creation was
due to the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, the plan to rescue the hostages
in Tehran.

> > And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,
>
> Although it would be directed at the command and control center of the
> Iranian government, it would not be in the interest of the U.S. to destroy
> the Iran nation. It needs someone to negotiate with unless it intends to do
> a George Brush in Iraq.

I'd say Carter's plan would be to do a George Bush I/Desert Storm and not
Dubya's full-on invasion; destroying the Iranian military and infrastructure
as much as possible via air attacks, while accepting that Iran was too hard
of a nut to crack and lost to the mullahs anyways.

> > it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
> > captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
> > trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
> > they can actually put up a fight.
>
> The Iranian airforce was worse than Iraq, in fact much worse. There was
> little loss of U.S. pilots in Iraq.

The Iranian airforce was extremely competent during the Iran-Iraq War and
this despite defections of officers and men to the West after the Ayatollah
took over;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

And the Iranians did that (which also doesn’t count all the Iraqi aircraft
destroyed on the ground) with only roughly 1/3 of their airforce operational
due to parts shortages and the embargo.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis had more aircraft to start with and got shitloads more
from the Soviets and other sources as the war went on.

> > Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…
>
> If it fails maybe not.

If Carter's goal is punishing Iran, (and it will be for reasons listed above)
then it'll be a success and he'll have wide support throughout the U.S.

I'd say his reelection is guaranteed and probably carries over with Mondale
winning at least one term afterward.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Rich Rostrom
>> > WolfBear
>>
>> >... and, if so, how exactly?
>>
>> If "Iran" (the Ayatollah and the radicals) had murdered some of
>> captured diplomats (gruesomely, in public), and then demanded
>> ransoms for the others... _And_ sponsored anti-US terror attacks
>> outside Iran (say against US nationals employed in Saudi Arabia
>> or other Gulf States, or US military personnel posted in Turkey)...
>
>If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
>I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
>would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.
>
>And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,
>it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
>captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
>trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
>they can actually put up a fight.
>
>The Iranians (and other Muslims) would then likely carry out all kinda
>terrorist attacks, not just against the U.S. but on any nation who had
>been on board with the attack or even helped out (i.e. NATO, the Saudis,
>Turks and Israelis).
>
>Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…

What I'm interested in in this scenario is does Saddam Hussein get
involved? After all he fought Iran IOTL 1980-88. And if so how does
the US respond? Do they ally to Saddam? (Presumably this would
butterfly away any Iraqi attempt on Kuwait down the road)

On 6/6/2021 10:41 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Rich Rostrom
>>>> WolfBear
>>>
>>>> ... and, if so, how exactly?
>>>
>>> If "Iran" (the Ayatollah and the radicals) had murdered some of
>>> captured diplomats (gruesomely, in public), and then demanded
>>> ransoms for the others... _And_ sponsored anti-US terror attacks
>>> outside Iran (say against US nationals employed in Saudi Arabia
>>> or other Gulf States, or US military personnel posted in Turkey)...
>>
>> If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
>> I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
>> would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.
>>
>> And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,
>> it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
>> captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
>> trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
>> they can actually put up a fight.
>>
>> The Iranians (and other Muslims) would then likely carry out all kinda
>> terrorist attacks, not just against the U.S. but on any nation who had
>> been on board with the attack or even helped out (i.e. NATO, the Saudis,
>> Turks and Israelis).
>>
>> Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…
>
> What I'm interested in in this scenario is does Saddam Hussein get
> involved? After all he fought Iran IOTL 1980-88. And if so how does
> the US respond? Do they ally to Saddam? (Presumably this would
> butterfly away any Iraqi attempt on Kuwait down the road)
>

You just very MUCH outed yourself as Canadian.

Saddam was ALREADY treated as a US ally until 1990 *IOTL*. He thought
that the US had, in July, given him a German-Empire-to-Franz-Josef-style
"blank cheque" regarding Kuwait, because the American ambassador said
"[W]e have no opinion on the Arab--Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait".

Unfortunately, (nearly all of) Iraq was united in the belief that
Kuwait--and the UAE as well--had no more right to exist than the State
of Israel and possibly less, as their territory was integral to what
Iraqis (even the Shi'a) considered "the historical Iraq" and had been
separated from Iraq only by evil intervention of the British government.

Despite the ambassador's further words that

"[W]hen we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the
UAE and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military action
against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned",

he still thought the US would just sit idly by and watch "Iraq finally
be reunited".

If anything, Saddam will be even *MORE* confident of, at _worst,_ "US
acceptance of a fait accompli" ITTL. And I'm honestly a bit surprised
I'm the first one here to point that out.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

> Chrysi Cat
> > The Horny Goat
> >
> > What I'm interested in in this scenario is does Saddam Hussein get
> > involved? After all he fought Iran IOTL 1980-88. And if so how does
> > the US respond? Do they ally to Saddam? (Presumably this would
> > butterfly away any Iraqi attempt on Kuwait down the road)
>
> Saddam was ALREADY treated as a US ally until 1990 *IOTL*.

Prior to the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was a straight-up Soviet ally and wasn't
friendly with the U.S. until the war turned sour for them (which happened
pretty quickly).

In this ALT, Saddam might go either way.

One the one hand, Iran is getting its ass kicked by the U.S and this would
be the perfect time to grab all kinda territory but on the other hand, the
U.S. is beating up on a Muslim nation and he might not want to be seen
as callously taking advantage of this?

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:29:58 -0600, Chrysi Cat wrote:

> Saddam was ALREADY treated as a US ally until 1990 *IOTL*.

No,

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:54:07 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Chrysi Cat
>>> The Horny Goat
>>>
>>> What I'm interested in in this scenario is does Saddam Hussein get
>>> involved? After all he fought Iran IOTL 1980-88. And if so how does
>>> the US respond? Do they ally to Saddam? (Presumably this would
>>> butterfly away any Iraqi attempt on Kuwait down the road)
>>
>> Saddam was ALREADY treated as a US ally until 1990 *IOTL*.
>
> Prior to the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was a straight-up Soviet ally and wasn't
> friendly with the U.S. until the war turned sour for them (which happened
> pretty quickly).
>
> In this ALT, Saddam might go either way.
>
> One the one hand, Iran is getting its ass kicked by the U.S and this would
> be the perfect time to grab all kinda territory

Any expansion of Saddam would be seen as a victory for the USSR. If oil is
involved, this would be most worrying to the U.S.

> but on the other hand, the
> U.S. is beating up on a Muslim nation and he might not want to be seen
> as callously taking advantage of this?

Iran was his enemy, Islamics were worrying him then and Saddam was a
secularist at this stage.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

>> SolomonW
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> If Iran went that far, even Jimmy Carter would have to respond and though
>>> I can’t see a ground war happening, (post-Vietnam as you mentioned) he
>>> would have no choice but to launch a massive bombing campaign.
>>
>> With elite troops, I can see raids.
>
> Sure, though U.S. Special Operations Command didn’t exist yet at that point,
> (each branch had it's own units doing their own thing) in fact it's creation was
> due to the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, the plan to rescue the hostages
> in Tehran.
>
>>> And while this would eventually destroy Iran as a functioning nation,
>>
>> Although it would be directed at the command and control center of the
>> Iranian government, it would not be in the interest of the U.S. to destroy
>> the Iran nation. It needs someone to negotiate with unless it intends to do
>> a George Brush in Iraq.
>
> I'd say Carter's plan would be to do a George Bush I/Desert Storm and not
> Dubya's full-on invasion; destroying the Iranian military and infrastructure
> as much as possible via air attacks, while accepting that Iran was too hard
> of a nut to crack and lost to the mullahs anyways.

Agreed although I doubt he would be doing of anything as extensive as Bush.

>
>>> it would also result in X number of American pilots being shot down and
>>> captured, (and presumably gruesomely executed) as the Iranians are U.S.
>>> trained, have F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats and unlike Arab militaries,
>>> they can actually put up a fight.
>>
>> The Iranian airforce was worse than Iraq, in fact much worse. There was
>> little loss of U.S. pilots in Iraq.
>
> The Iranian airforce was extremely competent during the Iran-Iraq War and
> this despite defections of officers and men to the West after the Ayatollah
> took over;
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
>
> And the Iranians did that (which also doesn’t count all the Iraqi aircraft
> destroyed on the ground) with only roughly 1/3 of their airforce operational
> due to parts shortages and the embargo.
>
> Meanwhile, the Iraqis had more aircraft to start with and got shitloads more
> from the Soviets and other sources as the war went on.

Yeah, you are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force

Despite limitations and sanctions, the IRIAF achieved an extremely
successful kill rate in air-to-air combat against Iraqi jets, to the point
that in air-to-air engagements, Iran's kill ratio was roughly 5:1, which is
only surpassed by the Israelis against Syria in 1982 and the U.S. in the
Gulf war in 1991......As a result of this war, the IRIAF developed proven
tactics and skillful battle tested pilots, thus becoming one of the most
experienced air arms in the region.

Plus, they did have some modern planes like the F-14. So I would expect
something better than the U.S. air battles vs Iraqi a bit later. How much,
I am not sure.

>
>>> Jimmy Carter does get reelected though…
>>
>> If it fails maybe not.
>
> If Carter's goal is punishing Iran, (and it will be for reasons listed above)
> then it'll be a success and he'll have wide support throughout the U.S.

Indeed as long as no major US losses. Major here is not high as the U.S.
public have a very low tolerance to U.S. battle losses.

>
> I'd say his reelection is guaranteed

If a success YES, it would not take much as Mogadishu showed to turn it
into a defeat.

> and probably carries over with Mondale
> winning at least one term afterward.

Bush 1 won bigger, and it did not help him on the second run.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 16:29:58 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/6/2021 10:41 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
>> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm interested in in this scenario is does Saddam Hussein get
>> involved? After all he fought Iran IOTL 1980-88. And if so how does
>> the US respond? Do they ally to Saddam? (Presumably this would
>> butterfly away any Iraqi attempt on Kuwait down the road)
>
>You just very MUCH outed yourself as Canadian.
>
>Saddam was ALREADY treated as a US ally until 1990 *IOTL*. He thought
>that the US had, in July, given him a German-Empire-to-Franz-Josef-style
>"blank cheque" regarding Kuwait, because the American ambassador said
>"[W]e have no opinion on the Arab--Arab conflicts, like your border
>disagreement with Kuwait".

Well yes and no - ask ANY Israeli who was of adult age at the time of
the 1967 and 1973 wars which Arab foe they most hated and 90+% of them
would say the Iraqis. And obviously with the 1991 Iraqi missile
attacks on Israel proper the feeling was mutual. (Since Saddam
Hussein's goal with these attacks was to break Arab participation in
Desert Storm it can be argued that for him these were both business
AND pleasure!)

As for 'no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts' everyone knows American
objectives were (1) don't disrupt the flow of oil, (2) don't start
another Arab-Israeli war or a war of any sort. With (3) don't commit
atrocities that will force our hand not far behind.

If Saddam SERIOUSLY thought the US would countenance military action
in the Gulf (as opposed to negotiated changes to the status quo) he
was a lot dumber than anybody thought and no question any Iraqi
advisor should have told him that the US was especially on edge after
the events of the previous 2-3 years in eastern Europe.

>Unfortunately, (nearly all of) Iraq was united in the belief that
>Kuwait--and the UAE as well--had no more right to exist than the State
>of Israel and possibly less, as their territory was integral to what
>Iraqis (even the Shi'a) considered "the historical Iraq" and had been
>separated from Iraq only by evil intervention of the British government.
>
>Despite the ambassador's further words that
>
> "[W]hen we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the
>UAE and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military action
>against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned",
>
>he still thought the US would just sit idly by and watch "Iraq finally
>be reunited".
>
>If anything, Saddam will be even *MORE* confident of, at _worst,_ "US
>acceptance of a fait accompli" ITTL. And I'm honestly a bit surprised
>I'm the first one here to point that out.

I'm astonished I'm the first one to point out that in general terms
for the last 40 years (as a minimum) the United States is opposed to
ANYTHING that involves gunfire in the general area of oil tankers. The
rare times anything happened at sea during the 1980-88 Iranian Iraqi
war both the Soviets and Americans spoke up REAL quickly.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:00:23 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Plus, they did have some modern planes like the F-14. So I would expect
>something better than the U.S. air battles vs Iraqi a bit later. How much,
>I am not sure.

Might not have been the case in 1979 - in any case there were Iraqi
air raids on Iranian cities during 1980-88. I have an Iranian
immigrant friend who was on the wrong end of an Iraqi air raid during
that war.

He gave quite a moving speech on the subject in the week before
November 11th (which most Americans know is when Canadians and Brits
observe our day of remembrance for our war dead) a few years back

>> If Carter's goal is punishing Iran, (and it will be for reasons listed above)
>> then it'll be a success and he'll have wide support throughout the U.S.

Agreed.

>Indeed as long as no major US losses. Major here is not high as the U.S.
>public have a very low tolerance to U.S. battle losses.

What does that mean? I know a (Canadian) family who lost a son in 1991
in a logistical accident along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border though in 1991
the Canadian involvement was mostly naval. (No armor at all as far as
I know)

When 2003 came round Canada said no but had the very good excuse that
80+% of Canadian ground combat troops were already in Afghanistan.

On Sun, 06 Jun 2021 19:42:54 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:00:23 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>Plus, they did have some modern planes like the F-14. So I would expect
>>something better than the U.S. air battles vs Iraqi a bit later. How much,
>>I am not sure.
>
> Might not have been the case in 1979 - in any case there were Iraqi
> air raids on Iranian cities during 1980-88. I have an Iranian
> immigrant friend who was on the wrong end of an Iraqi air raid during
> that war.
>
> He gave quite a moving speech on the subject in the week before
> November 11th (which most Americans know is when Canadians and Brits
> observe our day of remembrance for our war dead) a few years back

Check out a movie

Under the Shadow

If you bear with it, you will not be sorrow.

>
>>> If Carter's goal is punishing Iran, (and it will be for reasons listed above)
>>> then it'll be a success and he'll have wide support throughout the U.S.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>Indeed as long as no major US losses. Major here is not high as the U.S.
>>public have a very low tolerance to U.S. battle losses.
>
> What does that mean? I know a (Canadian) family who lost a son in 1991
> in a logistical accident along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border though in 1991
> the Canadian involvement was mostly naval. (No armor at all as far as
> I know)
>
> When 2003 came round Canada said no but had the very good excuse that
> 80+% of Canadian ground combat troops were already in Afghanistan.

I think that shows my point. But, fortunately, or unfortunately (depending
on your view), modern democracies have a low tolerance to losses.

> SolomonW
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > I'd say Carter's plan would be to do a George Bush I/Desert Storm and not
> > Dubya's full-on invasion; destroying the Iranian military and infrastructure
> > as much as possible via air attacks, while accepting that Iran was too hard
> > of a nut to crack and lost to the mullahs anyways.
>
> Agreed although I doubt he would be doing of anything as extensive as Bush.

GB I in the sense of the air campaign of Desert Shield, though across a much
larger area, without same level of the precision as in 1990, at much longer
ranges while facing a capable opponent and without the benefit of the Reagan
and Bush era military buildup* and improvement in moral after Vietnam.

*which included extensive development of military bases in Saudi Arabia and
the prepositioning of ordnance, spare parts, equipment, etc.

> > The Iranian airforce was extremely competent during the Iran-Iraq War and
> > this despite defections of officers and men to the West after the Ayatollah
> > took over;
>
> Plus, they did have some modern planes like the F-14. So I would expect
> something better than the U.S. air battles vs Iraqi a bit later. How much,
> I am not sure.

The U.S. is going to take losses because of the above issues, no way around it.

> > I'd say his reelection is guaranteed
>
> If a success YES, it would not take much as Mogadishu showed to turn it
> into a defeat.

The battle of Mogadishu resulted in 19 U.S. troops dead, one captured and two
helicopters shot down, this will be MUCH MUCH worse but on the other hand,
the U.S. position here is clearly justified and I believe Americans will be wholly
behind Carter even with the losses.

> > and probably carries over with Mondale winning at least one term afterward.
>
> Bush 1 won bigger, and it did not help him on the second run.

Bush I didn’t invade and topple Saddam, which was Israel’s goal and this cost
him his reelection, (Bush II would do as he was told, as did Obama) just as more
recently Trump didn’t start a war against Iran and got the same treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

> The Horny Goat
>
> As for 'no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts' everyone knows American
> objectives were (1) don't disrupt the flow of oil, (2) don't start another
> Arab-Israeli war or a war of any sort. With (3) don't commit atrocities
> that will force our hand not far behind.

You’re forgetting (4) eliminate Saddam and Iraq as a threat to Israel.

There is no way in hell the U.S. was "surprised" by Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait, we knew it was coming and let it happen so that we'd
have justification for destroying the strongest military in the MidEast
(a military that was vastly improved because of the Iran-Iraq War)
and making Saddam look like chump, as he was seen by Arabs
and Muslims as the only leader with the balls to stand up to Israel
and the U.S.

On 6/7/2021 7:41 AM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip historical discussion that makes plenty of sense>

> Bush I didn’t invade and topple Saddam, which was Israel’s goal and this cost
> him his reelection, (Bush II would do as he was told, as did Obama) just as more
> recently Trump didn’t start a war against Iran and got the same treatment.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
>

Terrific, because I'm not already getting my RDA of
anti[semitism]"Zionism" from the Hindu supremacist infesting
a.usage.english these days.

Not engaging any further until you acknowledge that this is not a case
of "all regimes but Trump's are the ZOG".

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:57:52 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:

>> When 2003 came round Canada said no but had the very good excuse that
>> 80+% of Canadian ground combat troops were already in Afghanistan.
>
>I think that shows my point. But, fortunately, or unfortunately (depending
>on your view), modern democracies have a low tolerance to losses.

By losses I assume you mean casualties - which obviously in
Afghanistan were far lower than WW1 + WW2 though Canadian troops were
in Afghanistan longer than both world wars combined.

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 10:38:00 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:57:52 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>
> >> When 2003 came round Canada said no but had the very good excuse that
> >> 80+% of Canadian ground combat troops were already in Afghanistan.
> >
> >I think that shows my point. But, fortunately, or unfortunately (depending
> >on your view), modern democracies have a low tolerance to losses.
> By losses I assume you mean casualties - which obviously in
> Afghanistan were far lower than WW1 + WW2 though Canadian troops were
> in Afghanistan longer than both world wars combined.
I would dispute a broad statement that "modern democracies have a low tolerance for losses" simply because there is no proof of that. Name one war involving a democracy after WWII where the war came to an end because of casualties. Modern wars have been different, using technology rather than brute force to achieve goals. A side effect of that method has been fewer casualties. Now, that's not to say that a modern conflict involving peer powers would not be horrible casualty-wise. It certainly would. But I strongly suspect that the current democracies would accept casualties as opposed to the alternative of ending a war on unfavorable terms.

Dean

> dama...@gmail.com
> > The Horny Goat
> >
> > By losses I assume you mean casualties - which obviously in Afghanistan
> > were far lower than WW1 + WW2 though Canadian troops were in Afghanistan
> > longer than both world wars combined.
>
> I would dispute a broad statement that "modern democracies have a low tolerance
> for losses" simply because there is no proof of that. Name one war involving a
> democracy after WWII where the war came to an end because of casualties.

While I wouldn't say it ended _exclusively_ because of casualties, the U.S. got out
of Vietnam in large part because of casualties and the resulting anti-war protests
and opposition to the draft.

In this ATL scenario, the U.S. is going to suffer quite a few losses in aircrews because
the Iranians have American F-5, F-4 and F-14 fighters (dunno what kinda ground air
defenses Iran had) and can put up serious opposition to the U.S. attacks.

Still, I don't think it would be enough to get the U.S. to back down, as the (televised)
sight of American hostages and captured aircrews being publicly beheaded by Iran
would absolutely enrage the American public.

They'd be screaming for nukes to be used and Carter's Pentagon would chomping
at the bit for a ground war regardless of the state of the post-Vietnam U.S. military.

> Chrysi Cat
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Bush I didn’t invade and topple Saddam, which was Israel’s goal and this cost
> > him his reelection, (Bush II would do as he was told, as did Obama) just as more
> > recently Trump didn’t start a war against Iran and got the same treatment.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
>
> Terrific, because I'm not already getting my RDA of anti[semitism]"Zionism"
> from the Hindu supremacist infesting a.usage.english these days.
>
> Not engaging any further until you acknowledge that this is not a case
> of "all regimes but Trump's are the ZOG".

Pointing out and opposing Israel/AIPAC leading the U.S. around by the nose
is not "anti-semitism", I'd say the same regardless of what nation was doing this.

On 6/8/21 8:26 AM, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> Pointing out and opposing Israel/AIPAC leading the U.S. around by the nose
> is not "anti-semitism", I'd say the same regardless of what nation was doing this.

Believing that "Israel leads the U.S, around by
the nose" is anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

> (Bush II would do as he was told, as did Obama)

This would be the Obama who actively assisted the
opposition parties in Israeli elections and
dismantled the economic and technological
sanctions against Iran, all presumably under
orders from Netanyahu?

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

> Rich Rostrom
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Pointing out and opposing Israel/AIPAC leading the U.S. around
> > by the nose is not "anti-semitism", I'd say the same regardless
> > of what nation was doing this.
>
> Believing that "Israel leads the U.S, around by the nose"
> is anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

No it isn’t. This isn't the forum to debate this and the information is
out there if you're willing to do the minimal research but the fact is,
the U.S.-Israel alliance is a one-way street that gets the American
people nothing while sticking us with the bill payed in blood and
money and we've been doing so ever since LBJ's administration.

> > (Bush II would do as he was told, as did Obama)
>
> This would be the Obama who actively assisted the opposition
> parties in Israeli elections and dismantled the economic and
> technological sanctions against Iran, all presumably under
> orders from Netanyahu?

It would be the Obama (along with Hillary) who ignited the “Arab Spring”
that was designed by the CIA and Mossad to turn the Arab world upside
down and leave it in perpetual civil war (for which he won a Noble Peace
Prize...) and who in his last days in office, gave Israel a $10 billion tip
(and they still wouldn't let him join their country club, lol).

In article <6269c378-cd77-415e-852b-8aeb9e27efaen@googlegroups.com>,
"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Rich Rostrom
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > Pointing out and opposing Israel/AIPAC leading the U.S. around
> > > by the nose is not "anti-semitism", I'd say the same regardless
> > > of what nation was doing this.
> >
> > Believing that "Israel leads the U.S, around by the nose"
> > is anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
>
> No it isn’t. This isn't the forum to debate this and the information is
> out there if you're willing to do the minimal research

It is easy to find raving lunacy; slightly more difficult to recognize
it.

>
> It would be the Obama (along with Hillary) who ignited the “Arab Spring”
> that was designed by the CIA and Mossad to turn the Arab world upside
> down and leave it in perpetual civil war (for which he won a Noble Peace
> Prize...)

Was this the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded about a year BEFORE the
Arab Spring started?

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com