Invasion of Iran? (1 Viewer)

[U.S.Repub1]

Would you support an invasion (war) with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program? Due to the fact that they are irresponsible.

 

[aquapub]

Would you support an invasion (war) with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program? Due to the fact that they are irresponsible.

Irresponsible isn't the word I would use. Dedicated to our destruction; directly linked with nearly every major terrorist attack against U.S. troops that has ever occurred...something like that, perhaps.

I have wanted us to "wipe them off the map" for years now. I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.

 

[Deegan]

Irresponsible isn't the word I would use. Dedicated to our destruction; directly linked with nearly every major terrorist attack against U.S. troops that has ever occurred...something like that, perhaps.

I have wanted us to "wipe them off the map" for years now. I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.

I would say I have to disagree, I don't want to invade Iran, I just want to control their airspace, and kill anyone coming out of those nuclear facilities. I think our AirForce would be the ideal solution, as it will probably be a war of attrition, with us starving them out of their underground holes!

 

[Navy Pride]

Whoops, I thought it was Iraq and not Iran...At the present time I would not invade Iran..........

 

[Kandahar]

I have wanted us to "wipe them off the map" for years now. I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.

I don't think we have the time to wait. Iran may produce a nuclear weapon in as little as twelve months. We need to invade, and we need to do so very soon. The last thing we need is another Cold War because we waited too long.

 

[Willoughby]

I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.

so thats in five or so years then

Of course invasion of Iran should not happen. putting aside the moral issues you have to consider that if you can't control Iraq then how can you think of invading Iran

 

[Kandahar]

so thats in five or so years then

Of course invasion of Iran should not happen. putting aside the moral issues you have to consider that if you can't control Iraq then how can you think of invading Iran

Because they're dangerously close to obtaining nuclear weapons. How much "control" we could/should have over Iran following an invasion is an issue that can and should be debated. But let's not confuse it with the issue of whether or not we should allow the present regime to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't think we have the time to wait. Iran may produce a nuclear weapon in as little as twelve months. We need to invade, and we need to do so very soon. The last thing we need is another Cold War because we waited too long.

I think we should give the Israelis the green light to take out Iran's reactors........

 

[Kandahar]

I think we should give the Israelis the green light to take out Iran's reactors........

I don't think that America is restraining them from doing so, as it is. They'll take out the reactors if they think they are able to do so and it's in their best interests, but I'm not holding my breath. For one thing, I simply don't think Israel has the military capability to accomplish what needs to be accomplished (aside from using nukes themselves). It would be difficult even for America to do so.

America needs to prepare for war with Iran, one way or another. Having support from allies is good, but overreliance on them can lead to things not getting done.

 

[Willoughby]

But let's not confuse it with the issue of whether or not we should allow the present regime to develop nuclear weapons.

so why shouldn't the Iranian government not be allowed nuclear power or dare i say it nuclear weapons?

 

[Kandahar]

so why shouldn't the Iranian government not be allowed nuclear power or dare i say it nuclear weapons?

Are you serious?

Because they're irresponsible, irrational fanatics who fund terrorism, and would either A) use the nukes immediately, consequences be damned; or B) use them as a form of blackmail and step up their more conventional forms of aggression to destabilize the entire region.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't think that America is restraining them from doing so, as it is. They'll take out the reactors if they think they are able to do so and it's in their best interests, but I'm not holding my breath. For one thing, I simply don't think Israel has the military capability to accomplish what needs to be accomplished (aside from using nukes themselves). It would be difficult even for America to do so.

America needs to prepare for war with Iran, one way or another. Having support from allies is good, but overreliance on them can lead to things not getting done.

I don't know how old you are but Israel took their nuclear reactors out once already and if we gave them the go ahead they would do it again........

 

[Kandahar]

I don't know how old you are but Israel took their nuclear reactors out once already and if we gave them the go ahead they would do it again........

No, Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, not Iran's. There are a lot of differences in the two situations; Iran has learned from Iraq's mistake. Whereas there was only one nuclear facility in Iraq, there are upwards of a hundred in Iran. Iraq's was in plain sight and an easy target for Israel; many of Iran's facilities are underground specifically to avoid bombs.

I don't see why Israel's actions toward Iran would be affected at all if America "gave them the go ahead." I doubt that George Bush has the ability or desire to stay their hand as it is. While Israel might be able to help, I think it's just wishful thinking that they'll be able to do this on their own.

 

[Navy Pride]

No, Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, not Iran's. There are a lot of differences in the two situations; Iran has learned from Iraq's mistake. Whereas there was only one nuclear facility in Iraq, there are upwards of a hundred in Iran. Iraq's was in plain sight and an easy target for Israel; many of Iran's facilities are underground specifically to avoid bombs.

I don't see why Israel's actions toward Iran would be affected at all if America "gave them the go ahead." I doubt that George Bush has the ability or desire to stay their hand as it is. While Israel might be able to help, I think it's just wishful thinking that they'll be able to do this on their own.

Are you saying that Iraq had nuclear reactors at one time?

I think you underestimate the Israelis........

 

[Kandahar]

Are you saying that Iraq had nuclear reactors at one time?

Yes, in the 1980s Israel took out the Osirak reactor in Iraq. I assume that was the incident you were referring to.

I think you underestimate the Israelis........

Their military is very capable considering their size...But a country of six million people simply does not have the ability to do what needs to be done in Iran.

 

[Synch]

Invasion of Iran at this moment is time is IMPOSSIBLE. We don't have the troops, all we can do is a few air strikes, but they've diversed their factory locations so..

 

[Kandahar]

Invasion of Iran at this moment is time is IMPOSSIBLE. We don't have the troops, all we can do is a few air strikes, but they've diversed their factory locations so..

It's possible. We easily toppled Saddam's government in just a few weeks with less than 200,000 troops. Even if the Iranian government was twice as strong, that's only 400,000. If it was four times as strong, we could do it with 400,000 in twice the amount of time it took to topple Saddam.

Our armed forces have a few million people. While Iran's military is probably stronger than Iraq's was, it isn't THAT much stronger. Invasion is certainly not impossible. Our military spending is based on the contingency of fighting a world war on at least three fronts at a time, although we could probably fight on five or six fronts if we needed to.

 

[Volker]

Starting a war with Iran does not make sense.
It does not make sense by using ground troops, it does not make sense by using airplanes and it does not make sense to give green light to this one or two dozen Israelian F-15 fighters near Beersheeba.

 

[F41]

I support the targeting and destruction of their nuclear facilities.
Invasion would be an after thought:gunsmilie

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Iran may produce a nuclear weapon in as little as twelve months.

Where'd you hear this 'n?


Iran is stronger than Iraq was. Further, it also has much stronger suppport from its citizenry than Hussein had.
The US is bent over the barrel of Iraq. Iran fostered and still fosters the two largest political parties in Iraq. If we move on Iran, Iraq will really go up in flames. Iran has not used its influence thus far to encourage widespread, violent engagement with the US military.
The US is counting on the Iraqi armed forces to stand up se we can stand down. The Iraqi armed forces are comprised largely of Shia militias who have loyalties to their particular militia (and political party) as well as nominal loyalty to the still forming Iraqi govt. The Iraqi govt doesn't have the legitimacy or the wherewithal to override these loyalties to individual militia groups.
If Iran wished it, the Iraqi armed forces would fall into chaos and the situation in Iraq would grow even more violent and deadly. Currently, the state of affairs in Iraq suits the Iranians to a tee. Iran's sphere of influence has been expanded to include Iraq thanks to the efforts of the US military.

If 'success' in Iraq is important, then there will be no invasion of Iran.

Sure, we could decimate Iran's army and their population, but the consequences are not desirable, nor managable.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Not another " Foreign adventure ". Bush picked the weakest of " The Axix of Evil " to start a war with and he hasn't conquered them. Iran is a lot stronger than Iraq .

 

[Kandahar]

Where'd you hear this 'n?

That's the lower estimate of the US State Department.

Iran is stronger than Iraq was.

A little bit, perhaps. They're still no match for the American military. We overthrew Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks.

Further, it also has much stronger suppport from its citizenry than Hussein had.

That's not true, the Iranians hate their government.

The US is bent over the barrel of Iraq. Iran fostered and still fosters the two largest political parties in Iraq. If we move on Iran, Iraq will really go up in flames.

Perhaps. But what is the alternative? Letting them get nuclear weapons? I'm not so sure this is even true; it stands to reason that if the Iranian mullahs are busy fighting off American troops on their own soil, their influence with any relevant Iraqi groups will decline rapidly.

Iran has not used its influence thus far to encourage widespread, violent engagement with the US military. The US is counting on the Iraqi armed forces to stand up se we can stand down. The Iraqi armed forces are comprised largely of Shia militias who have loyalties to their particular militia (and political party) as well as nominal loyalty to the still forming Iraqi govt. The Iraqi govt doesn't have the legitimacy or the wherewithal to override these loyalties to individual militia groups.
If Iran wished it, the Iraqi armed forces would fall into chaos and the situation in Iraq would grow even more violent and deadly. Currently, the state of affairs in Iraq suits the Iranians to a tee. Iran's sphere of influence has been expanded to include Iraq thanks to the efforts of the US military.

There's no reason for us to be in Iraq except to use it as a launching pad to invade Iran. What happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. The US cannot force democracy or unity on them, nor can the Iranians exert much influence if they're hiding from the US military in their own country.

If 'success' in Iraq is important, then there will be no invasion of Iran.

Success in Iran is more important than success in Iraq.

Sure, we could decimate Iran's army and their population, but the consequences are not desirable, nor managable.

And it is desirable/manageable to have them get a nuclear weapon?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's the lower estimate of the US State Department.

Interesting. Could you please provide a link to your source?

A little bit, perhaps.

As you can see here, as of 12-2002, Iraq had

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 274,035 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$1.3 billion (FY00)
​

And Iran currently has

Manpower fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
Definition Field Listing
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
​

I suppose you could call a difference of millions of folks and billions of dollars a "little bit" if one's not overly concerned about nitpicking accuracy or if one is willing to use an irregular meaning of the phrase.

They're still no match for the American military. We overthrew Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks.

And then the war ended, or no? Aren't we still involved in the 'Iraq War'?

That's not true, the Iranians hate their government.

Perhaps some do, but the comment that yo're responding to is that Hussein was hated more by the Iraqis than the current Iranian govt is hated by Iranians. So, even though you denied the veracity of the claim, you cited something that was only near the point as refutation.
Further, Iranians are in favor of Iran having The Bomb.

... it stands to reason that if the Iranian mullahs are busy fighting off American troops on their own soil, their influence with any relevant Iraqi groups will decline rapidly.

Because these poltical groups (SCIRI, Dawa, etc) that have spent the last few decades being cultivated in Iran will suddenly forget the past twenty years?
It doesn't really stand to reason at all actually. Even though the resources available to Iran will be constricted by engaging the Us, that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) enough resources available to inflame the situation in Iraq even further than what it is.

There's no reason for us to be in Iraq except to use it as a launching pad to invade Iran.

Riight. And the whole multi-billion dollar rebuild Iraq thing we're sacrificing American lives for is just diversion to trick the Iranians, or something? Are you sure there's no other reason?

... nor can the Iranians exert much influence if they're hiding from the US military in their own country.

Because they won't be able to make phone calls or send messages to their agents who're already in Iraq? What are you thinking here? What about an US invasion will stop Iran from sending messages to its agents?

Success in Iran is more important than success in Iraq.

Wow. AFAICT, pretty much the entire world is of the opinion that US success in Iraq is a vital US national interest and that failure there will bringt untold misery upon the world. But you say that we can scrap that as long as we screw Iran real good in the process?

And it is desirable/manageable to have them get a nuclear weapon?

Mostly, it's just the Iranians desire Iran to have The Bomb. Managable? Most likely more managable than the world-wide world of **** that would result from a US invasion of Iran.
Iranian govt has no history of invading other countries.
The consequences of using the bomb would be catastrophic for Iran. Iran knows it.
Iranian nukes are primarily only useful as a strategic defensive measure.

 

[Kandahar]

Interesting. Could you please provide a link to your source?

My mistake, it was the lower estimate of Mossad, not the US State Department.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

As you can see here, as of 12-2002, Iraq had

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 274,035 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$1.3 billion (FY00)
​

And Iran currently has

Manpower fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
Definition Field Listing
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
​

I suppose you could call a difference of millions of folks and billions of dollars a "little bit" if one's not overly concerned about nitpicking accuracy or if one is willing to use an irregular meaning of the phrase.

Not millions of folks; the actual military manpower is a better indicator than the potential military manpower.

So at a quick glance, it looks like Iran's military is about three times as strong as Iraq's was, both in terms of manpower and expenditures. Fair enough. If we invaded Iran with three times as many troops, or were willing to take three times as long to topple the Iranian government as it took to topple Saddam's government, it should be just as easy.

And then the war ended, or no? Aren't we still involved in the 'Iraq War'?

The Iraq War never had clearly defined objectives, so who's to say whether it's over? If our objectives in Iran were simply to topple the ayatollahs and destroy all weapons programs, we could easily accomplish our goals.

Perhaps some do, but the comment that yo're responding to is that Hussein was hated more by the Iraqis than the current Iranian govt is hated by Iranians. So, even though you denied the veracity of the claim, you cited something that was only near the point as refutation.

How can you compare who was more hated? Iraq was such a hermetic society prior to the war that there were no reliable opinion polls.

Further, Iranians are in favor of Iran having The Bomb.

This is true. And if there is a strong nationalistic desire for them, we probably can't stop them. But it'd be much better to have them in the hands of a liberal democracy (or at least a rational government) than irrational fanatics.

Because these poltical groups (SCIRI, Dawa, etc) that have spent the last few decades being cultivated in Iran will suddenly forget the past twenty years? It doesn't really stand to reason at all actually. Even though the resources available to Iran will be constricted by engaging the Us, that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) enough resources available to inflame the situation in Iraq even further than what it is.

I'm not saying one way or another on this, but a group that is fighting to keep control of its own country will most likely not have the time or desire to expend resources influencing other countries.

Riight. And the whole multi-billion dollar rebuild Iraq thing we're sacrificing American lives for is just diversion to trick the Iranians, or something? Are you sure there's no other reason?

Ah, let me rephrase. There are no GOOD reasons for us to still be in Iraq, other than as a launching pad for an Iranian invasion. That doesn't mean that's why we ARE still there.

Because they won't be able to make phone calls or send messages to their agents who're already in Iraq? What are you thinking here? What about an US invasion will stop Iran from sending messages to its agents?

They can call all they want; influence is based on more than just the ability to communicate. If the Iranians have no money, no capability to threaten, and no capability to reward, why would Iraqi groups still listen to them? They might have some ideology in common, but the Iraqis are still likely to act for themselves rather than just doing what the Iranians tell them to do.

Wow. AFAICT, pretty much the entire world is of the opinion that US success in Iraq is a vital US national interest and that failure there will bringt untold misery upon the world.

And a nuclear Iran will bring roses and chocolate to the world?

But you say that we can scrap that as long as we screw Iran real good in the process?

Yes.

Mostly, it's just the Iranians desire Iran to have The Bomb. Managable? Most likely more managable than the world-wide world of **** that would result from a US invasion of Iran.

That's wishful thinking.

Iranian govt has no history of invading other countries.

And that means they never will?

The consequences of using the bomb would be catastrophic for Iran. Iran knows it.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of the leadership is not rational and simply does not care about the consequences. But even if they did care...see below.

Iranian nukes are primarily only useful as a strategic defensive measure.

Which means that they would feel less constrained by stepping up more conventional forms of aggression, on the premise that no one would dare stop a country with such "strategic defensive measures."

 

[JOHNYJ]

Four years and we haven't even secured Baghdad ! Who would trust the Boogey Man president and his yes man generals with a war with Iran. No one with a brain.