RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 Lots of intimidation from Georgie and the Generals. They've got lotsa physical evidence Iran is directly and officially involved with killing our soldiers and lots of Iraqis in IraqMilitary victory would be simple. I just don't want another Iraq-building venture as that is an ENTIRELY different thing and it is, IMHO, not needed with Iran.I think the plan should be go there, remove the regime, get the nukes, and GET OUT. Three week time span.The situation is different than Iraq- no cultural sectarian tensions and a westernized populace ala the Shah era. In other words, they should be able to create a new governement without too much trouble provided the current Theocratic regime is sufficiently decimated.I think to not stop the flow of crap Iran is jamming into Iraq to kill our soldiers and countless Iraqis will all but guarantee we cannot win there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 No. They wont, they cant, and they cant be that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 No. They wont, they cant, and they cant be that stupid.Thats a broad statement. Armed forces are down sized to a critical point thanks to previous presidents, but with the right ROE technology goes a long way in a ground war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 Thats a broad statement. Armed forces are down sized to a critical point thanks to previous presidents, but with the right ROE technology goes a long way in a ground war.Well even if it was technically possible, I'm not sure how Bush will manage to start another war with the dems in control. Unless he jumps on a plane himself and starts a private one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 ... Unless he jumps on a plane himself and starts a private one.Now that would be a "cowboy" thing to do.The Dems aren't in full control by any means. And personally, I see no choice if the US hopes to be successful in Iraq. I don't see how ANY negotiation with theocrats ever works at all. It's like negotiating with a religeous cult. Their policy is not based on logic so much as it is faith, a higher purpose, and religeon. This is, to me, a diplomatic solution impossibility. And if the US can't stop their flow of disruption and weapons across the border into Iraq, what other choice does it have?I think the possibility of invasion is very real that's why Putin went crazy the other night- he's taking it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 . And if the US can't stop their flow of disruption and weapons across the border into Iraq, what other choice does it have?So let me get this straight, the US miltary is unable to control stuff passing over a border or keep any kind of peace in Iraq (with Afghanistan still an unstable shithole) but successfully invading a reasonably well armed country would be peanuts.Iraq was a pushover because they had no serious firepower left and because the military couldnt give a toss. Iran would by no means be as easy, or as short, and it has the capability to wreak havoc on "countries" within some distance. All this with Iraq a huge mess getting worse by the day where the US military is already hugely underpowered.Sure, Iran could be invaded but the result would be even less desirable than how the last 2 monkeyups turned out. At this point I am sure nothing like this is being seriously contemplated. Heck i'd bet all my money there wont be an invasion of Iran in the next years to come.The time has come to just let the middle east meddle in its own stupidity, you cant introduce real democracy in those countries stuck in the dark ages. If you want less terrorists then stop giving people reasons (as dumb as they may be) to become one. All the collateral damage and negative PR these wars create produces a heck of a lot more suicidal idiots than you can ever get rid of with guided bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 So let me get this straight, the US miltary is unable to control stuff passing over a border or keep any kind of peace in Iraq (with Afghanistan still an unstable shithole) but successfully invading a reasonably well armed country would be peanuts.Iraq was a pushover because they had no serious firepower left and because the military couldnt give a toss. Iran would by no means be as easy, or as short, and it has the capability to wreak havoc on "countries" within some distance. All this with Iraq a huge mess getting worse by the day where the US military is already hugely underpowered.Sure, Iran could be invaded but the result would be even less desirable than how the last 2 fuckups turned out. At this point I am sure nothing like this is being seriously contemplated. Heck i'd bet all my money there wont be an invasion of Iran in the next years to come.The time has come to just let the middle east meddle in its own stupidity, you cant introduce real democracy in those countries stuck in the dark ages. If you want less terrorists then stop giving people reasons (as dumb as they may be) to become one. All the collateral damage and negative PR these wars create produces a heck of a lot more suicidal idiots than you can ever get rid of with guided bombs.I disagree. The US can't even control it's border with Mexico. And the border netween Iran and Iraq is long.As for Iran well armed, no it isn't. It was equaly decimated against Iraq in their war and they have not done much rebuilding. Don't confuse numbers with effectiveness. Iran's military is a MINOR consideration. I mean look, they are still trying to get their F-14s flying. As further evidence, examine what happened to Iraq's huge militray in 1991 (deemed fourth largest in the world) when they were driven out of Kuwait very easily. Baghdad was half a day away. The Republican Guard was insignificant. Since then the US military has modernized, but yes, shrunk. The US is already o the ground and Tehran is a few days drive away.The US is bogged down not because we haven't won militarily, but because we are trying to build a nation. I agree that the US is not so stupid so as to try to build Iran as well. Nor is that needed for reasons I pointed out in the first post.I am all for letting the Middle East do as you say in regards to stupidity. There's just one little catch- oil.Once western civilization can do without oil, let them have at each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashif Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 Lots of intimidation from Georgie and the Generals. They've got lotsa physical evidence Iran is directly and officially involved with killing our soldiers and lots of Iraqis in IraqMilitary victory would be simple. I just don't want another Iraq-building venture as that is an ENTIRELY different thing and it is, IMHO, not needed with Iran.I think the plan should be go there, remove the regime, get the nukes, and GET OUT. Three week time span.The situation is different than Iraq- no cultural sectarian tensions and a westernized populace ala the Shah era. In other words, they should be able to create a new governement without too much trouble provided the current Theocratic regime is sufficiently decimated.I think to not stop the flow of crap Iran is jamming into Iraq to kill our soldiers and countless Iraqis will all but guarantee we cannot win there.Why do you care, your not going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 Why do you care, your not going.What are saying? That only those that go, care? Wanna think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashif Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 What are saying? That only those that go, care? Wanna think about that?So that means your not going, Right?Are all neo cons Paper Tigers? Yeah lets go destroy someone, except you do it and I'll root for you safe and sound at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 So that means your not going, Right?Are all neo cons Paper Tigers? Yeah lets go destroy someone, except you do it and I'll root for you safe and sound at home.School Bell! You do not know your terms.Paper Tiger: The phrase paper tiger is a literal English translation of the Chinese phrase zhi laohu (紙老虎), meaning something which seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless The common usage is synonymous with the adjective toothless, meaning ineffective.You mean "Chickenhawk"Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military.You may now drop and give me twenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 What are saying? That only those that go, care? Wanna think about that?HAAHH you the last hope for Cali man. As for invading it would be cake as long we were were under the right SOP. Whats gonna screw up hippies heads is if we ever fight in a theater again were we do not have air superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAzOR Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 HAAHH you the last hope for Cali man. As for invading it would be cake as long we were were under the right SOP. Whats gonna screw up hippies heads is if we ever fight in a theater again were we do not have air superiority.Tonight they are gathering for a love-in around my house.And it looks like air superioirity shouldn't be a problem for a good while...CVN-21 Program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM850R Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 It would be a big mistake for us to invade Iran. Plain and simple. They arent going to use their nukes unless they are given a damn good reason, like the US invading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I don't see why there would be a need to invade a country like Iran in the first place. They seem to be politically self-imploding by their own actions. Anything more would just be more. There certainly might be some necessary limited actions taken knowing that our pal Putin has been sending the Iranians missiles capable of destroying our aircraft carriers in the gulf. But as far as an invasion with boots on the ground, I don't think that will ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts