Invasion of Iran?

[Kandahar]

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

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

I disagree. A campaign of air strikes would not guarantee eliminating all of the nuclear sites. Furthermore, Iran would almost certainly retaliate against Iraq or Israel in some way, thus escalating the conflict and making it a matter of us having to invade anyway.

 

[F41]

I disagree. A campaign of air strikes would not guarantee eliminating all of the nuclear sites. Furthermore, Iran would almost certainly retaliate against Iraq or Israel in some way, thus escalating the conflict and making it a matter of us having to invade anyway.

Putting troops on the ground would stretch our forces to a point it would be suicide, if air strikes do not do the job, then I say show them up close and personal what real nukes can do....

 

[Simon W. Moon]

.. I say show them up close and personal what real nukes can do....

and thus nuclear war will be prevented.

 

[Kandahar]

Putting troops on the ground would stretch our forces to a point it would be suicide,

Not if we stop wasting time fighting insurgents in Iraq.

 

[Captain America]

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

Man, you are full of surprises......:2wave:

 

[MSgt]

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.

Improving? Who said this? It happened like this...

1) Insurgency targeted Coalition forces and contractors.

2) Insurgency began recruiting local Sunni fighters and targeted Coalition forces and contractors.

3) Insurgency began targeting Iraqi Muslims (Shi'ites and Sunni) to scare them from voting as the Iraqi population defied their terror tactics and voted anyway.

*first Fallujah

4) Insurgency continued to punish Iraqi Muslims as the local Sunni fighters seperated from the insurgency because of the Muslim targeting.

*second Fallujah

5) Sunni fighters began targeting insurgency in defense of Iraqi citizens and began targeting Shi'ites.

6) Insurgency has been beaten out of one rat nest after another by U.S. Marines and Iraqi military and has no real area of HQ as local Sunni fighters begin terror tactics on Shi'ites and foreign contractors.


The biggest problem we are having now is not the insurgency. Most of the violence has been local Sunni fighters who are not willing to consider themselves equals to Shi'ites and Kurds. They are punishing their fellow Muslims and trying to scare the population into obedience. It's the only method they know and when men are confronted with change, they cling to what they know. No amount of security can keep determined people from killing themselves. The Sunni, which condemned the insurgency tactics of killing fellow Muslims in Iraq, merely took their place as exterminator. However, this said, it is still more secure than D.C.

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2300 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C?

Anyway, the point is...if the citizens of D.C. started to kill each other over religion and they were determined to destroy, do you really think any sort of security could controll it? The only reason we do not see the violence of Muslim countries in our own is because of our civilization -a tribute to the opportunities offered by our society and to our cultural robustness. Our citizens and fellow Muslim Americans are Americans first. This is not the case abroad. In the Middle East they are devoted to religion and sect only. They are not "Iraqis" first. Expecting the Middle East to mirror other regions in the west is not practical. There is going to be violence. It's what they do.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2300 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

This is a silly comparison.
If the citizens of DC were trained professional who travelled in groups and followed military discipline and appropriate procedures and wore body armor and used armored troop transports to get around etc,
OR
If our troops were just going to conerts, movies and out to dinner instead of being military folks in harm's way,

then the comparison might have some bearing. But, as it is it's Macintoshes and navels.

A better comparison would be to compare the lives of civilians with civilians.


Next, afaict, 2,300 per 160,000 yeilds 1437 per 100,000. But perhaps I'm figuring it incorrectly. How'd you arrive at the 60 per 100,000 number?

 

[MSgt]

Not if we stop wasting time fighting insurgents in Iraq.

It is going to take the Marines and the Army a few years to recover. It is not about the man power. It's the equipment.

 

[MSgt]

This is a silly comparison.
If the citizens of DC were trained professional who travelled in groups and followed military discipline and appropriate procedures and wore body armor and used armored troop transports to get around etc,
OR
If our troops were just going to conerts, movies and out to dinner instead of being military folks in harm's way,

then the comparison might have some bearing. But, as it is it's Macintoshes and navels.

A better comparison would be to compare the lives of civilians with civilians.


Next, afaict, 2,300 per 160,000 yeilds 1437 per 100,000. But perhaps I'm figuring it incorrectly. How'd you arrive at the 60 per 100,000 number?

I didn't. Someone sent it to me and I thought it was funny. I actually meant it to be silly. Anyway, it was just meant to show that the violence in Iraq is not what people think. Also, the comparisons were just to show that most of the death in Iraq is being caused by civilians on civilians. Hence, all of the weapons in D.C. as a subject and the difference between our civilizations. People are expecting security in a fashion that will only come if Iraqis decide they want it. Much of the population is determined to murder. Democracy faces an uphill struggle in tribal cultures where blood ties trump national interests (See Pakistan as a lesson). In Iraq, they do not see themselves as "Iraqis" first. They are Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurds.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I didn't. Someone sent it to me and I thought it was funny. I actually meant it to be silly. Anyway, it was just meant to show that the violence in Iraq is not what people think. Also, the comparisons were just to show that most of the death in Iraq is being caused by civilians on civilians. Hence, all of the weapons in D.C. as a subject and the difference between our civilizations. People are expecting security in a fashion that will only come if Iraqis decide they want it. Much of the population is determined to murder. Democracy faces an uphill struggle in tribal cultures where blood ties trump national interests (See Pakistan as a lesson). In Iraq, they do not see themselves as "Iraqis" first. They are Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurds.

Iraq as you know is actually three nations combined into one nation. This was of course known before we went into Iraq. Those who argued that going into Iraq was a bad idea said back before the war that once we went in, we would end up stuck in the middle of all of the sectarian fighting between the Sunnis, Shiites, and to a lesser extent the Kurds, and that we would stand little to gain from it. The Neo-Conservative Hawks simply replied with “Freedom Is On The March”

Now that we are in there, we are stuck in the middle of all the sectarian fighting between the Sunnis, Shiites, and to a much lesser extent, the Kurds and we stand little to gain from it. So far we have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money and lost over 2000 lives over this think tank inspired experiment, and we are finding that we were probably better off with Saddam still in there. That is not to say that the people of Iraq were better off, but at least when he was in there, all this sectarian fighting and borderline civil war was his problem, not ours. We stand to sink hundreds of billions of dollars more into this think tank inspired experiment, and the insurgents and different ethnic groups know that all it takes is enough mosques to be blown up and no amount of American money or power will prevent that country from sliding into all out civil war.


If I am not mistaken, that was the opinion of Bush Sr. (who was a good president), way back during the Gulf War and that is exactly why he did not have us march own into to Baghdad back then.

On top of all of this, there are some people out there, and I know you are not one of them, who honestly think that it would be a great idea for us to go into Iran and try once again, much the same experiment in imposing democracy on that nation as well. The fall of almost every great empire was the direct result of those empires going broke. The fact is, even if Iraq starting going absolutely rosy, we simply cannot afford to do this again.

 

[MSgt]

Iraq as you know is actually three nations combined into one nation. This was of course known before we went into Iraq. Those who argued that going into Iraq was a bad idea said back before the war that once we went in, we would end up stuck in the middle of all of the sectarian fighting between the Sunnis, Shiites, and to a lesser extent the Kurds, and that we would stand little to gain from it. The Neo-Conservative Hawks simply replied with “Freedom Is On The March”

Now that we are in there, we are stuck in the middle of all the sectarian fighting between the Sunnis, Shiites, and to a much lesser extent, the Kurds and we stand little to gain from it. So far we have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money and lost over 2000 lives over this think tank inspired experiment, and we are finding that we were probably better off with Saddam still in there. That is not to say that the people of Iraq were better off, but at least when he was in there, all this sectarian fighting and borderline civil war was his problem, not ours. We stand to sink hundreds of billions of dollars more into this think tank inspired experiment, and the insurgents and different ethnic groups know that all it takes is enough mosques to be blown up and no amount of American money or power will prevent that country from sliding into all out civil war.


If I am not mistaken, that was the opinion of Bush Sr. (who was a good president), way back during the Gulf War and that is exactly why he did not have us march own into to Baghdad back then.

On top of all of this, there are some people out there, and I know you are not one of them, who honestly think that it would be a great idea for us to go into Iran and try once again, much the same experiment in imposing democracy on that nation as well. The fall of almost every great empire was the direct result of those empires going broke. The fact is, even if Iraq starting going absolutely rosy, we simply cannot afford to do this again.

I see and acknowledge your points, but one thing is certain for our future securities. The Middle East must change and our foreign policy must change to reflect the will of the people and not the oppresive governments we do business with. We have to take the lumps today to cushion the future. Imagine if we had done the right thi9ng and taken Saddam out in the early 90's? Where would we be today? Bush Sr. and Clinton ignored what inevitably was to happen. The invasion into Iraq, despite the mundane day-to-day details is a historic occassion for the Middle East and indeed the world. Iraq does offer us exactly what we are hoping for - the domino effect.

This was last year....

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.

Commissioned by the Iran Institute for Democracy, the survey discovered that 65 percent of Iranian adults consider fundamental change in Iran's system of government, especially its Constitution, a must to bring freedom and more opportunities to their homeland.

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

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Look at the actual results though. Again and again, the Neo-Conservatives have argued that democratizing Iraq would result a domino effect and the end result would be largely the democratization of the entire Middle East.

Since we have gone into Iraq:

• The Egyptians have elected the most Fundamentalist / Anti-American leaders that they have had in decades.
• The Iranians have now the most anti-American régime that they have had since the revolution.
• The Palestinians have elected Hamas.

In terms of Middle East foreign policy, our going into Iraq has been, as true conservatives and moderates alike said it would be, an absolute disaster. Moreover, what do we do if the extremists in Iraq succeed in their ultimate goal and Iraq does disintegrate into an all out civil war?

 

[Kandahar]

It is going to take the Marines and the Army a few years to recover. It is not about the man power. It's the equipment.

I disagree. We spend enormous sums of money on our military, more than the next ten nations combined. Our equipment is state-of-the-art, and certainly good enough to overthrow a third-world military.

Remember, we just need clearly defined objectives. The best comparison to accomplishing our objectives in Iran (the overthrow of the government and elimination of weapons) is what we accomplished in Iraq in a few weeks, not the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

While Iran's military is undoubtedly better than Iraq's was, it would still be very easily defeated by the American military.

 

[MSgt]

Look at the actual results though. Again and again, the Neo-Conservatives have argued that democratizing Iraq would result a domino effect and the end result would be largely the democratization of the entire Middle East.

Since we have gone into Iraq:

• The Egyptians have elected the most Fundamentalist / Anti-American leaders that they have had in decades.
• The Iranians have now the most anti-American régime that they have had since the revolution.
• The Palestinians have elected Hamas.

In terms of Middle East foreign policy, our going into Iraq has been, as true conservatives and moderates alike said it would be, an absolute disaster. Moreover, what do we do if the extremists in Iraq succeed in their ultimate goal and Iraq does disintegrate into an all out civil war?

Try not to use terms like "NeoCon" or "Liberal nutcase." It shuts down the dialogue.

You are trying to fit something that will take a long time to evolve, into a mere three years. The Middle East defies any immediate solution. It will take generations for them to change what they have spent a history perfecting. This is why this "War on Terror" will take years beyond our lifetimes. The Middle East must change and it will take time. This does not mean constant war.

In 50 years, we may look back on a changed Middle East where Iran is liberal and westernized and reflects the vast percentage of what Iranians want today. It is likely, that they may even be an ally again. Jordan will be westernized and more liberal (as is King Abdul's wishes today). Syria may be more liberal. Islamic Radicalism will persist, but the west has proven that the opportunities offered by our societies and our cultural robustness has significantly lowered any breeding of militant fanatics.

In 50 years, we will look back and see that Iraq started it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I disagree. We spend enormous sums of money on our military, more than the next ten nations combined. Our equipment is state-of-the-art, and certainly good enough to overthrow a third-world military.

Yeah, but we've been using the hell out of it for the past few years. Sure it's state of the art, but nothing is impervious to wear and tear.

Remember, we just need clearly defined objectives. The best comparison to accomplishing our objectives in Iran (the overthrow of the government and elimination of weapons) is what we accomplished in Iraq in a few weeks, not the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

That comes acrosss as something that should be mindbogglingly shortsighted. Unfortunately, it seems merely mundanely shortsighted. (But, things are not always what they seem.)
All that we can really do is delay the inevitable.
The real answer lies in getting more moderate folks into positions of power. Currently, the US's help is an anathema to legitimate Iranian resistance groups. Associating w/ the US isn't what the resistance groups think will help them gain converts in Iran.

If we buy a delay at the price of creating an opening for an even more anti-American, anti-Israeli regime (which simply wrecking Iran would do), then we've not really improved things, but just put of the inevitable which is the organic, indigenous and idiosyncratic liberalization of Iran.

For the region, Iran actually has one of the longer histories of egalitarian distributions of power and representative govt. Even now, the basis of the current govt's legitimacy rests in part on the idea that they garnered the consent of the people. The meme holds water and carries weight in Iran.

 

[MSgt]

I disagree. We spend enormous sums of money on our military, more than the next ten nations combined. Our equipment is state-of-the-art, and certainly good enough to overthrow a third-world military.

Remember, we just need clearly defined objectives. The best comparison to accomplishing our objectives in Iran (the overthrow of the government and elimination of weapons) is what we accomplished in Iraq in a few weeks, not the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

While Iran's military is undoubtedly better than Iraq's was, it would still be very easily defeated by the American military.

Dude, it is not the technological level of our equipment I was referring to - it is the condition of it. Our wheeled vehicles, weapons, communications equipment, aircrafts, and tracked vehicles have been non-stop for three years. Much of it has not been replaced. It has been repaired and repaired. Before Iraq, we were working with Vietnam era equipment from our aircrafts to the canteens on our hips. We have spent a fortune counteracting the neglect of the 90's modernizing our military to our technical training level and we are using damn near every bit of it. As gear needs replaced, it gets replaced. However, an entire new campaign would demand a lot of repair and replacement. These repairs and replacements depends on civillian owned companies that produce equipment as fast as they are able. For perspectives - it took almost a year to fully equip the military with SAPI plates that before Iraq, didn't exist.

Because of our perfections in "Fire and Maneuvers" and "Combined Arms," there is not a country in this world that could defeat our military. This includes China (numbers only means a longer bloodier fight). However, broken gear is broken gear.

 

[jamesrage]

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.

For some reason I see a repeat of what happend three or four years ago.

Here is how I see it playing out.

1.)Iran will repeatedly tell UN inspectors **** off and not let them look at
suspicious sites.

2.)Everyone reguardless of political affiliation will be "hey they got WMDs"

3.)War will be supported by both parties because of the strong likelyhood
they have nukes and the leader of Iran is a wackjob.

4.) After our country is involved and commited certian people will play the
selective memory game and forget about the fact that UN inspectors
were being denied access to certian suspicious facilities and how
everyone(left or right) thought there was nukes and that a nutjob like the
leader of Iran would very likely use them.

5.)The liberals will then proceed to accuss the president of lying and
misleading them into war and claim to that they were lied to.

6.)News speak,USA away and other liberal rags will continiously air negative stories about our troops while saying "we support the troops,but here is story of one of our soldiers dropping a Koran on the ground" a fews days laters they report "muslims riot and kill over soldier's abuse of Koran"

7.)Liberals will make up all kinds of abusrd reason why we went to war.For
example -

-"This war is for oil"
-"This war is to finish another president's job"
-"This war is to help a politician's friend".
-"This war is to help Israel"
-"This war is because of neocons wanting to set up a new world
order.​

8.)Rat liberal lawers will want to represent enemy combatants.

9.)Liberals will make absurd claims that our freedoms are being taken away,while at the same time try to ban ban guns.

 

[MSgt]

For some reason I see a repeat of what happend three or four years ago.

Here is how I see it playing out.

1.)Iran will repeatedly tell UN inspectors **** off and not let them look at
suspicious sites.

2.)Everyone reguardless of political affiliation will be "hey they got WMDs"

3.)War will be supported by both parties because of the strong likelyhood
they have nukes and the leader of Iran is a wackjob.

4.) After our country is involved and commited certian people will play the
selective memory game and forget about the fact that UN inspectors
were being denied access to certian suspicious facilities and how
everyone(left or right) thought there was nukes and that a nutjob like the
leader of Iran would very likely use them.

5.)The liberals will then proceed to accuss the president of lying and
misleading them into war and claim to that they were lied to.

6.)News speak,USA away and other liberal rags will continiously air negative stories about our troops while saying "we support the troops,but here is story of one of our soldiers dropping a Koran on the ground" a fews days laters they report "muslims riot and kill over soldier's abuse of Koran"

7.)Liberals will make up all kinds of abusrd reason why we went to war.For
example -

-"This war is for oil"
-"This war is to finish another president's job"
-"This war is to help a politician's friend".
-"This war is to help Israel"
-"This war is because of neocons wanting to set up a new world
order.​

8.)Rat liberal lawers will want to represent enemy combatants.

9.)Liberals will make absurd claims that our freedoms are being taken away,while at the same time try to ban ban guns.

You should print this out and check them off as they occur.

 

[jamesrage]

You should print this out and check them off as they occur.

I should do that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Actually, usually it goes more like this:

• President makes case for war to “disarm Iran”. Presents intelligence to congress detailing Iran’s WMD Stockpiles. Excludes intelligence from congress that argues that Iran does not have any weapons of mass destruction.

• President makes numerous speeches about Iran’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In every one of them, the president claims that our mission will be to disarm Iran. In State of the Union, the president details Iran’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and talks of our need to disarm Iran. Throws a couple of mushroom cloud references in there to make his point.

• Both traditional conservatives and liberals argue that there is no hard evidence of Iran possessing weapons of mass destruction, and even if Iran did possess such weapons, that containment would be a better option than an invasion as an invasion would then put us in the middle of sectarian fights between different religious and cultural groups in Iran.

• War begins. President addresses the nation and tells them that our mission is to disarm Iran.

• Assistant Defense Secretary tells congress and the American people that the war will only cost them a few billion dollars and the rest will be financed with Iran’s oil revenues.

• Major conflict ends within a few weeks. President takes numerous photo opps and tells the American people: “Mission Accomplished”. Since weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found, president appoints a task force to use all of the resources at the disposal of the United States of America to find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

• Months later, weapons are still not found. Right wing media starts manufacturing stories about “stockpiles found, evidence to be released to the media in days” or “unnamed sources reveal that weapons were smuggled into Pakistan in the days before the war”. Even though every single one of those stories ends up being completely refuted, none the less, Fox News runs what seems like hundreds of them.

• Weapons still not found, President begins to talk about Weapons “Programs”.

• President’s hand picked task force reports back that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iran just prior to the war. Other hand picked commissions issue similar findings.

• President starts referring to Iran’s “desire to one day possibly begin weapons of mass destruction program at some point in the future”.

• Such explanations for the war do not sit well with the American people so President changes war rational to liberating and democratizing Iran.

• Sectarian and insurgent violence increases in Iran, hundreds of billions are spent, and no end is insight. Elections have been held, but government has still not been established and violence only worsens.

• After years and billions of dollars, U.S. pulls out of Iran no closer to meeting its stated objectives as it was the day we went in.

• 30 years later, revisionist right wingers make the claim that the United States was winning in Iran, but liberals cost them the war.

 

[MSgt]

History Channel right now!!!

Iran and nukes

 

[Kandahar]

For some reason I see a repeat of what happend three or four years ago.

Here is how I see it playing out.

1.)Iran will repeatedly tell UN inspectors **** off and not let them look at
suspicious sites.

2.)Everyone reguardless of political affiliation will be "hey they got WMDs"

3.)War will be supported by both parties because of the strong likelyhood
they have nukes and the leader of Iran is a wackjob.

4.) After our country is involved and commited certian people will play the
selective memory game and forget about the fact that UN inspectors
were being denied access to certian suspicious facilities and how
everyone(left or right) thought there was nukes and that a nutjob like the
leader of Iran would very likely use them.

5.)The liberals will then proceed to accuss the president of lying and
misleading them into war and claim to that they were lied to.

6.)News speak,USA away and other liberal rags will continiously air negative stories about our troops while saying "we support the troops,but here is story of one of our soldiers dropping a Koran on the ground" a fews days laters they report "muslims riot and kill over soldier's abuse of Koran"

7.)Liberals will make up all kinds of abusrd reason why we went to war.For
example -

-"This war is for oil"
-"This war is to finish another president's job"
-"This war is to help a politician's friend".
-"This war is to help Israel"
-"This war is because of neocons wanting to set up a new world
order.​

8.)Rat liberal lawers will want to represent enemy combatants.

9.)Liberals will make absurd claims that our freedoms are being taken away,while at the same time try to ban ban guns.

There's a big difference though. Iran actually does have WMDs; Iraq clearly did not. The fact that YOU were duped about Iraq has little relevance on Iran's military plans.

 

[jamesrage]

There's a big difference though. Iran actually does have WMDs; Iraq clearly did not. The fact that YOU were duped about Iraq has little relevance on Iran's military plans.

I remeber watching news way before the Iraq invasion.Inspectors would go in,Saddam would not let them look in certian suspicious facilities.This tap dance between UN inspectors wanting to look in certian buildings/facilties and Saddam not allowing them to look went on for months.He wa hidding something.

 

[Kandahar]

I remeber watching news way before the Iraq invasion.Inspectors would go in,Saddam would not let them look in certian suspicious facilities.This tap dance between UN inspectors wanting to look in certian buildings/facilties and Saddam not allowing them to look went on for months.He wa hidding something.

Clearly he wasn't.

In contrast, there is irrefutable evidence of Iran's nuclear program, not the least of which is their own admissions of such. Unlike Iraq, no one seriously disputes that Iran has WMDs.

 

[jamesrage]

Clearly he wasn't.

If he did not have WMDs then what was he hiding from the UN inspectors?