Invasion of Iran?

[conserv.pat15]

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.

The war in Iraq is one of the best fought wars in history... compare it to other wars. I fully trust Bush when it comes to war and I would fully support a war with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program.

 

[Kandahar]

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.

Who would trust Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons? No one with a brain.

 

[MSgt]

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.

Yeah. We should send "JOHNYJ" to show us how it is done..oh wait....he's not even on the bench.

The Iraq war was one of the most successful campaigns in history for a numerous of reasons. What has ensued since has been the occupation side of war taking place amongst a population where less than half longs for the days of old when they were favored over the others. If people are willing to destroy their own people, no military in the world can stop it unless they are willing to start slaughtering and exterminmating the population (which is what some ignorant bystander fools accuse us of anyway). Of course, we could "secure" Baghdad if we had the numbers to place a fire team (4 individuals) on every street permanently. What say you 'JOHNYJ'? You up for the draft? Surely a sixty year old has something to offer besides criticisms and ignorance.

 

[MSgt]

We are not able to invade Iran at this point. It has nothing to do with the men. It has everything to do with the equipment. If a ground war with Iran becomes the soup of the day, then those appeasing Europeans who have climbed all over our backs for long enough for their protection can lead the charge for a change. Then maybe we can laugh and scoff at every one of their mistakes and call them murderers, tyrants, and the "true terrorists" with every civillian death they cause.

Besides invasion, there is much hope that Iran will fix itself eventually from within. Of course, it is very doubtful it will occur before the nuclear issue forces an action.

 

[teacher]

Being that the F-22 is coming on line nicely, I wonder if it is time to lease Israel some somewhat technology wise dated F-117's with the promise of in flight refueling over Iraq. Granted it's a technology we might not want to share, but this threat of Iran ramping up to produce weapons grade nuclear material kind of puts that on the front burner. The Great Satan invading a truly Muslim nation will have some serious consequences. If the Israeli's do it, who can blame them after Iran stated it wants to wipe them from the face of the earth? Not often teacher gets edumacated, but Tashah gave me the skinny on the numbers of nuclear sites in Iran that seem to be getting ready to produce weapons grade material. Iranians are not putting all their nuclear eggs in one basket like Saddam did.

If a ground war with Iran becomes the soup of the day, then those appeasing Europeans who have climbed all over our backs for long enough for their protection can lead the charge for a change.

That's friggin hilarious Gunny!

Besides invasion, there is much hope that Iran will fix itself eventually from within. Of course, it is very doubtful it will occur before the nuclear issue forces an action.

The race is on! My hope is the young and the women of Iran can do this before the clock runs out. Saw a news report a couple of months ago where the old bearded men where in the Mosques praying for the destruction of the infidels. The young men where out on the street doing wheelies on motorcycles. One brave women without a veil even told the reporter she was not afraid of theocrats. Hope is within that nation. But the clock ticks...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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

AFAICT, your cite says that it would take a "year or so" to "learn the enrichment technology sufficiently." Also AFAICT, your cite says that after doing this Iran would still have "to learn how to trigger a nuclear explosion" and also how to "make a device small enough to be carried by an aircraft or missile."
AFAICT, your cite does not say what you appear to think it says. IMHO, it seems to say that it would take several years for Iran to get a nuke, not a single year.
Reread it. Maybe I'm wrong.

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.

So, you're using the phrase 'just as easy' to describe something that would require three times as much manpower? Just trying to be clear here.

The Iraq War never had clearly defined objectives, so who's to say whether it's over?

I note that our troops are still over there in more or less the same numbers that they were when we first went in. Since we haven't withdrawn or even drawn down our troops in any significant way, and since there's still ongoing violence, it wouldn't be too terribly out of line to suggest that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, IMHO. YMMV.

If our objectives in Iran were simply to topple the ayatollahs and destroy all weapons programs, we could easily accomplish our goals.

And if our goals were to secure peace in the region and long term security for the US, then our goals might be different and require more subtlety than a daisy cutter.

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.

Well, there have been numerous violent uprisings in Iraq that were brutally squashed. These sorts of things tend to leave lingering feelings. Whereas in Iran, things have been more stable - less mass slaughter of the citizenry anyway.
Perhaps the increase in the slaughter of folks by the Baathi govt didn't have the emotional effect that I assume it did. Or, perhaps the folks in Iran take to blood fueds over lesser things than the folks in Iraq.
What say you? Does the periodic mass slaughter of civilians lead to more resentments than not?

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.

Sure, sure. Not really much debate about that.

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.

Stirring the pot in iraq would be a defensive measure. It would tie US resources down in Iraq. It would be a relatiovely cheap necessity for Iran.

They can call all they want; influence is based on more than just the ability to communicate.

sure, but the willingness of the potential participants has already been established. So all that left is 'the word.' If Iran gives it, then its actors will act.

If the Iranians have no money, no capability to threaten, and no capability to reward, why would Iraqi groups still listen to them?

If the Iranians have no money, no capability to threaten, and no capability to reward, then we would not be in the position we're in. Going to war w/ them will not render Iran harmless. They will defend themselves. Stirring up Iraq will be a part of their defense.

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.

I'm not saying that the political parties in iraq are Iran's tools, but rather that they are inclined to take Iran's side over the US's. To paraphrase a recent Iraqi minister, "The US will leave, but Iran will always be next door."

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

AFAICT, things would not have to be great to be better than 'untold misery.' They'd only have to be not as bad.

Yes.

I see. You don't recognize American credibility as being all that valuable

That's wishful thinking.

Perhaps it is. However, I'm not alone in my flight of fancy:

CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."
​

And that means they never will?

Well, we should have at least an inkling that they're about to do so before we ask folks to die over it. I mean how sure do you think we should be before we ask someone to die? Given the lack of an aggressive hiostory, I think we should reflect a bit more before we load up the troop transports w/ folks who haven't even been recruited to our army yet.

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."

Using the bomb ends Iran as we all know it. There's no benefit to Iran in 'national obliteration.'

 

[Kandahar]

AFAICT, your cite says that it would take a "year or so" to "learn the enrichment technology sufficiently." Also AFAICT, your cite says that after doing this Iran would still have "to learn how to trigger a nuclear explosion" and also how to "make a device small enough to be carried by an aircraft or missile."
AFAICT, your cite does not say what you appear to think it says. IMHO, it seems to say that it would take several years for Iran to get a nuke, not a single year.
Reread it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ah, you are correct. This was the first source I found that had the one-year figure I've seen thrown around in the editorials. I'll look for another, however the "point of no return" within a year is a matter of equally grave concern:

However, Israel is worried that Iran could learn the enrichment technology sufficiently within a year or so and that achievement, Israel believes, would be the point of no return.

So, you're using the phrase 'just as easy' to describe something that would require three times as much manpower? Just trying to be clear here.

"Just as easy," in the sense that American victory would be assured, and it wouldn't take much longer than it did in Iraq if we went in with three times as many troops.

I note that our troops are still over there in more or less the same numbers that they were when we first went in. Since we haven't withdrawn or even drawn down our troops in any significant way, and since there's still ongoing violence, it wouldn't be too terribly out of line to suggest that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, IMHO. YMMV.

Agreed. But Iran is not Iraq. We would need to have clearly defined objectives in an invasion of Iran: Overthrow the theocracy and destroy the weapons programs. I have no interest in leaving our troops there to babysit an insurgency.

And if our goals were to secure peace in the region and long term security for the US, then our goals might be different and require more subtlety than a daisy cutter.

Yes...but those aren't the goals I'm talking about when I support an invasion of Iran, and there's no reason that an invasion would need to be premised on such overreaching goals.

Well, there have been numerous violent uprisings in Iraq that were brutally squashed. These sorts of things tend to leave lingering feelings. Whereas in Iran, things have been more stable - less mass slaughter of the citizenry anyway.
Perhaps the increase in the slaughter of folks by the Baathi govt didn't have the emotional effect that I assume it did. Or, perhaps the folks in Iran take to blood fueds over lesser things than the folks in Iraq.
What say you? Does the periodic mass slaughter of civilians lead to more resentments than not?

So you believe that popular support (or lack thereof) is solely based on the number of people the regime has killed?

Stirring the pot in iraq would be a defensive measure. It would tie US resources down in Iraq. It would be a relatiovely cheap necessity for Iran.

It seems to me that if the Iranians wanted to fight off US troops, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck investing in their own military to fight US troops, rather than "stirring the pot" next door.

sure, but the willingness of the potential participants has already been established. So all that left is 'the word.' If Iran gives it, then its actors will act.

If the Iranians have no money, no capability to threaten, and no capability to reward, then we would not be in the position we're in. Going to war w/ them will not render Iran harmless. They will defend themselves. Stirring up Iraq will be a part of their defense.

No, I mean after the war (or immediately before it). If the ayatollahs are hiding in the mountains from US troops (or there's reason to believe that they will be doing so in the near future), they lose a lot of credibility with their Iraqi colleagues.

Think of it this way: If your boss offered you millions of dollars a year to take a job that you disliked, you'd probably consider it (most people would anyway). If the police busted into your office and arrested your boss, and he promised you thousands of dollars in IOUs to take a job that you disliked, you'd probably be a lot less likely to take that same job.

The same thing with the Iraqi government...if they think that their Iranian benefactors are about to disappear, what incentive would they have to obey them?

I'm not saying that the political parties in iraq are Iran's tools, but rather that they are inclined to take Iran's side over the US's. To paraphrase a recent Iraqi minister, "The US will leave, but Iran will always be next door."

Iran certainly has some influence in Iraq as it is. But if it came to a stand off between the United States and Iran, which country is more stable, more likely to win the war, and more willing to pour large sums of money into Iraq?

AFAICT, things would not have to be great to be better than 'untold misery.' They'd only have to be not as bad.

Your adjective, not mine. And I see no reason to believe that the failure of US objectives in Iraq (what are those, BTW?) would be anywhere near as bad as a nuclear Iran.

I see. You don't recognize American credibility as being all that valuable

American military power is not infinite. We can't just stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue pouring money into it, just to protect American credibility. The administration made a mistake and it's time to move on.

Perhaps it is. However, I'm not alone in my flight of fancy:

CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."
​

From escalating? I'm talking about a full-scale invasion, not just a few airstrikes. I agree that airstrikes would escalate, which is why I think we need to plan for invasion now.

Well, we should have at least an inkling that they're about to do so before we ask folks to die over it. I mean how sure do you think we should be before we ask someone to die? Given the lack of an aggressive hiostory, I think we should reflect a bit more before we load up the troop transports w/ folks who haven't even been recruited to our army yet.

Not invading other countries is not the same as a "lack of an aggressive history." Iran is the single most aggressive country in the region.

Using the bomb ends Iran as we all know it. There's no benefit to Iran in 'national obliteration.'

That is but one of many fears. If Iran only uses the weapons as a defensive measure, that is still a cause for supreme concern. If they believe that no one would dare retaliate against a nuclear power, what's to stop them from stepping up conventional forms of aggression?

 

[Willoughby]

We overthrew Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks.

and how long will you be there trying to sort the mess!

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

evidence?

because i have evidence to the contary:

SPORTING his trademark Palestinian kaffieh round his neck, he fulminates against the governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, which reported Iran to the UN Security Council on February 4th on suspicion of trying to make nuclear bombs. He accuses those European newspaper editors who invoke freedom of expression while caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad of hushing up the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel. If anyone is enjoying the recent turn for the worse in relations between the western and Islamic worlds, it is Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
<snip>


also what about the knock on dangers of attacking iran. To attack Iran this way would make sense only if it were thought likely that a friendlier Iranian regime would then emerge. But Iran has no obvious, friendly government-in-waiting. And Iran could strike back—by closing the oil chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz or hitting American or Israeli interests via proxies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israel is well within range of Iranian missiles. Diplomacy has not stopped Iran so far. But military action is by no means an attractive alternative.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Just as easy," in the sense that American victory would be assured, and it wouldn't take much longer than it did in Iraq if we went in with three times as many troops.

Given that we needed three times the troops for Iraq that we took, we'd even more than that to keep Iran from becoming like Iraq - the new and improved training grounds for terrorist jihadis.

Agreed. But Iran is not Iraq. We would need to have clearly defined objectives in an invasion of Iran: Overthrow the theocracy and destroy the weapons programs. I have no interest in leaving our troops there to babysit an insurgency.

Flailing states, like failed states are a direct security threat to the US as they offer fertile ground for terrorists to thrive.
Turning Iran into a third flailing state would create an 1800 mile corridor sprinkled with terrorist training grounds from Jordan to Tajikistan.

Yes...but those aren't the goals I'm talking about when I support an invasion of Iran, and there's no reason that an invasion would need to be premised on such overreaching goals.

The security of the US is an overreaching goal?

Since you find greater instability in the ME acceptable, I take it you don't buy into the Democratic Domino Theory as to how invasion of Iraq will help reform the region and thereby make America safer?

So you believe that popular support (or lack thereof) is solely based on the number of people the regime has killed?

Just saying that I hold suspicions that mass murder has a noticeable impact on a citizenry's perception of its government. I reckon there're only a few things that inspire loathing like some mass murderin'.

It seems to me that if the Iranians wanted to fight off US troops, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck investing in their own military to fight US troops, rather than "stirring the pot" next door.

And you're wrong. Stirring the pot in Iraq is already bought and paid for. When Iran was pulling what strings it could to get the US into Iraq*, it already had a plan in place about how to conduct business thereafter.
There's very little additional expense. Iran has been moving personel and supplies across the border for years now.

*Iran used Chalabi to dupe U.S. (free registration req'd)

The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that for years Iran has used a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress to funnel disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets ...
[Chalabi's crew] also "kept the Iranians informed about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other sensitive information, he said. The ICP has received millions of dollars from the U.S. government over several years.
An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information had been provided (to the Iranians) through that channel."
​

No, I mean...
The same thing with the Iraqi government...

The eternal and fatal flaw of argument by analogy is that analogies are always flawed.

Iran certainly has some influence in Iraq as it is. But if it came to a stand off between the United States and Iran, which country is more stable, more likely to win the war, and more willing to pour large sums of money into Iraq?

Which country are Iraqis more sick of? The US or the Iranians who hosted the Iraqi resistance?

American military power is not infinite. We can't just stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue pouring money into it, just to protect American credibility. The administration made a mistake and it's time to move on.

We can't leave, we can't stay and we can't fail.

From escalating? I'm talking about a full-scale invasion, not just a few airstrikes. I agree that airstrikes would escalate, which is why I think we need to plan for invasion now.

Escalating into a regional war. I'm looking for the other reports of the wargaming scenarios that describe this regional escalation.

That is but one of many fears. If Iran only uses the weapons as a defensive measure, that is still a cause for supreme concern.

Well, perhaps not superlative concern, but certainly grave concern. This is very true. However, it is distinct from the notion that Iran is in a mad rush to blow a nuke.

If they believe that no one would dare retaliate against a nuclear power, what's to stop them from stepping up conventional forms of aggression?

Just like they think no one would dare retaliate against the nuclear armed US?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Willoughby,

Moderator's Warning:

Some folks have trouble understand ing this even though I've tried highlighting each of the items. So, in that light, please don't take offense at how simply I'm going top break this down. It's not directed at you in particular. In order to post someone else's material (copyrighted material in particular) there are a two (2) guidelines that must be followed. That's all, just two. #1 All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. All means all and must means must. All such material must contain a link to the original source. Willoughby, your piece did not have a link to the original source. And in ADDITON to this #2 Please do not post entire articles. I'm not sure how to clarify this. But, if needed, I will try. Willoughby, you posted the entire article. Please do not do this. What you should have done: Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. So remember, two guidelines which both must be followed at the same time. These guidelines, as well as others can be found here Forum Rules Thanks, your humble mod, SWM

 

[Willoughby]

sorry about that..i think i got carried away
the article is from teh economist by the way

 

[MSgt]

sorry about that..i think i got carried away
the article is from teh economist by the way

I've forgotten to link before too.

 

[MSgt]

evidence?

because i have evidence to the contary:

SPORTING his trademark Palestinian kaffieh round his neck, he fulminates against the governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, which reported Iran to the UN Security Council on February 4th on suspicion of trying to make nuclear bombs. He accuses those European newspaper editors who invoke freedom of expression while caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad of hushing up the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel. If anyone is enjoying the recent turn for the worse in relations between the western and Islamic worlds, it is Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
<snip>

Are you seriously this lost? Here......

"A scientific public opinion survey of Iranians shows most want regime change in their country and 74 percent believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq increases the chances they will be able to overthrow their Shiite theocracy.

The survey, which was the first of its kind, found two-thirds of Iranians believe that regime change in Iraq has been a positive for both neighboring countries: with 66 percent believing that it served Iran's national interests, while 65 percent believed the Iraqi people will, in the long-run, be better off."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44729



And......

"But since the 1979 revolution, there has been a population explosion in Iran. Some 70 percent of Iranians are under 30. As they come of age, with satellite television and the Internet, it has become an increasingly difficult task for the government to control what they see, hear and seek, especially when it comes to dating and sex."

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-05-03/niknejad-sexlives

 

[dragonslayer]

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.

Hell yes, let the chinese invade Iraq. After we get rid of our fascist government and start returning to the welfare of america, we will find away to get Iran to co-operate. Right now we are the ones running around waving weapons and threatening everyone, who don't agree with us, or let us control them.

when I think of Bush and war, I think of man who resembles and acts like Ben Laden, wave an american flag, a sword and a hydrogen bomb and gives his major loyalty to Haliburton and Exxon.

 

[Crispy]

Just to chime in here,

I think the US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is the reason for not persuing an invasion of Iran. Its more important to establish successes in these countries in order to foster the changes we seek in neighboring countries. I agree with gunny that, based on all that I've read about the Iranian population now, they are liable to incite their own revolution before too long. Our significant presence on Iran's borders helps to embolden this movement and also serves as deterrant to the Iranian Regime. Also, in the face of economic and political isolation, the Iranian people can easily turn against the regime with regards to its hard-line stance on Nuclear technology. The country is already in economic turmoil and further diplomatic defeats that could potentially cause their economy to suffer further will ultimately reflect on the regime.

I do believe that any military intervention now would inflame Iraqi insurgents and we ought not underestimate the influence that Iran can have on that situation. The perception that we are in the region to help is an important one and we can't be perceived as just a loose cannon ready to shoot. Iraq and Afghanistan set a precedent that we are "willing" to use force which was an important precedent to set, but, it shouldn't be perceived that we will "only" use force to affect change.

At this point an invasion is impractical at best because of military resources, political conditions, economic conditions and the social consequences in Iran and the region. Not to mention that the Iranian regime itself is doing all of the work for us. They're alienating themselves by their stance, jeopardizing what diplomatic ties they do have. Continuing on the path they are going on now will only further isolate them and perhaps lead to a shake up in the regime without the need for a military option.

Also there are certainly other avenues to persue to dissuade or prevent Iran from realizing their nuclear ambitions including the current tact of diplomatic and economic isolation. Small disruptive surgical military operations would be feasible options. Diplomacy and overt and covert support for opposing political factions within Iran is also a non-military, non-committing option and presumably already under way.

Letting their regime crumble under the weight of their own inadequacies may very well be the answer and continuing "hard-line" diplomacy seems to be an effective means of baiting the regime into making diplomatic mistakes that will cost them their throne.

 

[JOHNYJ]

The war in Iraq is one of the best fought wars in history... compare it to other wars. I fully trust Bush when it comes to war and I would fully support a war with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program.

What , he sent troops into battle without body armour. He didn't send enough troops to secure the country after their military collapsed.Its been 1,000 days plus since " Mission acomplished ". The capital isnt secure, the borders with Syria and Iran are not secure. Hell President Bush can't / won't secure our border with Mexico. Afghanistan is starting to to be a problem again. No way a war with Iran !

 

[MSgt]

What , he sent troops into battle without body armour. He didn't send enough troops to secure the country after their military collapsed.Its been 1,000 days plus since " Mission acomplished ". The capital isnt secure, the borders with Syria and Iran are not secure. Hell President Bush can't / won't secure our border with Mexico. Afghanistan is starting to to be a problem again. No way a war with Iran !

Poor misguided individual,

1) We all have body armour. Flak Jackets are normal issue. What you are referring to is the SAPI Plates that protect us from one 7.62 round. What many people are unaware of and many more are ignorant by design of, is the this technology did not exist prior to the Iraq war. It was manufactured and issued as quickly as possible, thanks to President Bush.

2) "Mission Accomplished" meant the end of the mission. Saddam's regime had fallen and we had control of the counrty. What ensued after this was something else. Sectorial infighting through passed down bigotries and foreign Islamist insurgents were a whole different matter.

3) Baghdad is more secure than Washington D.C. It is more secure than peopple think. Don't let headlines, meant to sell papers, portray your reality for you.

4) There is a plan for a wall on the Mexican border. Feel free to investigate.

5) The Muslims in Afghanistan are merely doing what Muslims do.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Poor misguided individual,

1) We all have body armour. Flak Jackets are normal issue. What you are referring to is the SAPI Plates that protect us from one 7.62 round. What many people are unaware of and many more are ignorant by design of, is the this technology did not exist prior to the Iraq war. It was manufactured and issued as quickly as possible, thanks to President Bush.

2) "Mission Accomplished" meant the end of the mission. Saddam's regime had fallen and we had control of the counrty. What ensued after this was something else. Sectorial infighting through passed down bigotries and foreign Islamist insurgents were a whole different matter.

3) Baghdad is more secure than Washington D.C. It is more secure than peopple think. Don't let headlines, meant to sell papers, portray your reality for you.

4) There is a plan for a wall on the Mexican border. Feel free to investigate.

5) The Muslims in Afghanistan are merely doing what Muslims do.

Eisenhower secured Germany. We have never secured Iraq. We retook some cities in Iraq 2 and 3 times. this was a war of choice and its a mess.

 

[MSgt]

Eisenhower secured Germany. We have never secured Iraq. We retook some cities in Iraq 2 and 3 times. this was a war of choice and its a mess.

They are all wars of choice. Saddam had to go for any one of a few good reasons. The Spanish/American war was a war of choice that need not have happened. No matter how you slice it, Saddam was going to fall sooner or later under some one's presidency.

Germany was secured using the same method that Bush has used for Iraq. The difference is the level of advancement the civilizations are (were) in. If Germany was in the same condition (religion, progress, former government) that the Middle East is in we would have seen Germans destroying each other as well. Perhaps looking at things for what they are instead of touting around the simplicity of the issues would be helpful.

 

[Willoughby]

the information about the opinion poll is from june 2005 and the economist magazine are speculating that the popularity of the president is rising and rising due to his nationalist outbursts

 

[Volker]

the information about the opinion poll is from june 2005 and the economist magazine are speculating that the popularity of the president is rising and rising due to his nationalist outbursts

Yes, I don't know the date of the poll, but the comment was from June 12 2005.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was voted with 62 % at June 24 2005.

I have my doubts about information from World Net Daily.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.

Why invade Iran to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons? We take care of that with a few bombers.

 

[Tashah]

A land invasion of Iran would be the epitome of folly. A heavy and sustained campaign of air strikes and cruise missiles should suffice.

 

[MSgt]

A land invasion of Iran would be the epitome of folly. A heavy and sustained campaign of air strikes and cruise missiles should suffice.

Agreed. The Iranian population shows great promise. A ground assault would be very counter-productive (and unnecessary).

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Poor misguided individual,

1) We all have body armour. Flak Jackets are normal issue. What you are referring to is the SAPI Plates that protect us from one 7.62 round. What many people are unaware of and many more are ignorant by design of, is the this technology did not exist prior to the Iraq war. It was manufactured and issued as quickly as possible, thanks to President Bush.

2) "Mission Accomplished" meant the end of the mission. Saddam's regime had fallen and we had control of the counrty. What ensued after this was something else. Sectorial infighting through passed down bigotries and foreign Islamist insurgents were a whole different matter.

3) Baghdad is more secure than Washington D.C. It is more secure than peopple think. Don't let headlines, meant to sell papers, portray your reality for you.

4) There is a plan for a wall on the Mexican border. Feel free to investigate.

5) The Muslims in Afghanistan are merely doing what Muslims do.

I have to disagree with you on that third one. Every year since the invasion the civilian death toll in Iraq has increased. If security was improving, then why would this be the case.

As to your second point, no one prior to the war had any doubt that we could not easily take the country. The problem was all the sectarian violence that we would be stuck in the middle of after we went in.