America is rearing up to attack Iran... (1 Viewer)

[veterandoggy]

i heard it on Ten News, and i was wondering "how can they try to start something against Iran when they havent finished from Iraq?"

obviously Iran isnt going to stay silent and even more obvious is the fact that the majority of Iraq is Shiite, so Iran would be able to get alot of support from Iraq if he does attack.

i personally want to see him try to attack Iran and at the same time i dont want to see him attack them.

---

Edit (Generator): If it's an event/news-specific discussion, be sure to post a link, please!

The World Today - Reports US planning for military strike on Iran

 

[leetom]

In true Republican fashion. Hopefully there will be a change of government in Iran before such a disaster can take place.

 

[Serius]

do u mean "try" to attack iran in that he would fail?
i am pretty sure america could crush Iran, probably overnight. I kinda wanna see it happen

 

[boon]

do u mean "try" to attack iran in that he would fail?
i am pretty sure america could crush Iran, probably overnight. I kinda wanna see it happen

dont think it will happen
threats only
no way they will ever use nuclear ever

 

[Serius]

why dont you think it will happen? people thought iraq wouldnt happen and it did. Same situation, Iran is dealing with suspisions of having nuclear armament, America doesnt like that, hence war.

Who says they need to use nuclear, Americas army is so far above Irans its laughable, it will be Iraq all over again, and guess who bennefited from that? no one but atleast America was better off than iraq

 

[davin]

differences in iran are taht, one, the world as a whole is generally more worried about iran so diplomatic pressure might work where it couldn't work in iraq with france and russia in communcation with saddam the way they were.... and also, as far as the u.s. goes... politically, bush can't go to war in iran at this point. two battle fronts open as it is, with elections coming up soon. bush is also in a lot weaker position politically because he's loosing a lot of his traditional backing because of the immigration issue in the u.s.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

And because he's putting the country in more debt than exists currency on the planet, but anyway...

 

[AntiHyper]

i heard it on Ten News, and i was wondering "how can they try to start something against Iran when they havent finished from Iraq?"

They started on Iraq when they haven't finished on Afghanistan.

 

[spell check]

do u mean "try" to attack iran in that he would fail?
i am pretty sure america could crush Iran, probably overnight. I kinda wanna see it happen

what the fuck

they need iran to help them if they're ever going to pull out of iraq, let alone beat iran in a war

 

[gerhard]

They started on Iraq when they haven't finished on Afghanistan.

hell, they havent finished in japan yet

 

[Mc_Meaney]

differences in iran are taht, one, the world as a whole is generally more worried about iran so diplomatic pressure might work where it couldn't work in iraq with france and russia in communcation with saddam the way they were.... and also, as far as the u.s. goes... politically, bush can't go to war in iran at this point. two battle fronts open as it is, with elections coming up soon. bush is also in a lot weaker position politically because he's loosing a lot of his traditional backing because of the immigration issue in the u.s.

Bush wont give a shit about an election - he cant be re-elected. He has served the max 2 terms so in theory he could do what he wanted...political career is winding up so really...

 

[Iron]

Uh, there is no capacity to invade and occupy Iran.

There's chronic overstretch in Iraq - a few short breaths away from conscription & a full repeat of Vietnam.
Even if the insurgency were stongly linked to Iran, (Iran having a strong interest in a Coaliton withdrawal, being in the best position to fill the power vaccums), they'd be reluctant.

This thread just shows how little some people appreciate the seriousness of Iraq for America. They are practically fighting for their survival as the dominant global power.

 

[Serius]

well then i hope they win. Afterwards they can go after iran[ i never liked that country]

 

[loquasagacious]

Ok no question america could wipe Iran off the map with either nuclear weapons or invasion (though the later would be by no stretch of the imagination a cake-walk).

However America could not occupy Iran.

Just as has been shown in Iraq, successfully invading and successfully occupying a country are two very different things.

Furthermore there are several other good reasons:

A) Forces that could be used to invade Iran are busy occupying Iraq.
B) The Iranian defence force is far better than Iraqs and would present a credible resistance.
C) The Iranians may have WMDs these could be used devastatingly against an invading force.
D) Saudi Arabia does not have enough surplus production capacity to cover Iranian oil going offline and hence prices would jump.
E) Terrorism would further increase the US facing groups moving freely between Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and fighting them in every theatre.
F) The region would be further destablised by the disappearance of another regional power (leaving only Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Israel and to a lesser extent Jordan and Syria remaining).
G) It would serve to further unite the muslim world against the west seeing three distinct muslim ethnic groups and three distinct muslim sects all attacked.
I) It would inevitably lead to the creation of a combined Irani/Iraqi state with Afghanistan in its sphere. This would become a very powerful actor and not disposed towards the US.
F) It would further worry and alienate Turkey by making the possibility of a Kurdish state even more feasible.
K) It would be opposed by european powers as it would lead to their involvement in iraq.
L) Russia would not be very pleased and intervention from the north to support Iran would be a distinct possibility.
M) The instability would threaten Israel.
N) Seeing the overstretched state of the US in the region Syria might become more active in both Iraq and Lebanon.
O) It would further destablise the regime in Saudi Arabia.
P) Terrorism across the globe would increase.
Q) Conscription would be needed in the US.
R) Even if Bush's political career is winding down he is considering how he wants to be remembered and how his tenure affects the chances of the next republican candidate.
S) Regional instability threatens Kuwait.
T) One country controlling Iranian, Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil would be very powerful.
U) It would cost an enormous ammount.
V) The need to invade defeats the administrations 'soft power' argument for democratic change.
W) It would promote extremism and reinforce autocratic regimes in the region by discrediting democracy advocates.
X) Further destablise the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Y) Sleep time
Z) Unfortunaey i'm too tired to come up with a punchy last two.

In short take this as the sabre-rattling it is.

 

[Minai]

well then i hope they win. Afterwards they can go after iran[ i never liked that country]

What did they do to you?

(My father is Iranian btw)

 

[Comrade nathan]

The national army in Iraq under Saddam wasn't that loyal. Saddam's main power base was also small, people weren't ready to die for him.

On the other hand you have loyal army in Iran, a very religious one too.

Then there is also the historical difference. Saddam was a US ally, he was basically sponsed by the US. It was only after 1991 he was not longer taking orders from the US.

On the other hand you have Iran. The current government came into power by overthrowing a US puppert, the Shah. Iran has strong revolutionary history and very anti US.

I don't doubt that the US could occupy Iran, but it could never hold Iran as long as it has Iraq. From the the begining of invasion the US would have to face an army who is willing to die defending Iran, unlike the Iraqi army who quickly were defeated or surrended. Then after the defeat of the Iranian army, there would be a united resistance, unlike the resistance in Iraq which is a factionalised.

It is naive to think because the US were able to destroy the Iraqi army they would do so in Iran.

Then added in with how overstreched and unpopular the war is in Iraq, Iran would become a death trap.

 

[davin]

Bush wont give a shit about an election - he cant be re-elected. He has served the max 2 terms so in theory he could do what he wanted...political career is winding up so really...

i didn't mean Bush's election. i meant that he would need support from the Republican party in the U.S., and THEY won't support going into Iran because it'll hurt them in elections

 

[leetom]

There is no plan for an invasion of Iran, if there is it exists only in the mind of the most insane hawk. The talk is of an overnight strategic bombing raid taking out key nuclear facilities. The question is how extensive the raid would be: whether to restrict the attack to nuclear intallations or a more general attack against non-nuclear military infrastructure at the same time.

Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. Putting a decisive end to a nuclear Iran is perhaps his way of offsetting the Iraq disaster.

 

[dandel26]

There will never be an invasion of Iran. World stock markets (especially the American economy) would collapse. Iran holds a very powerful card and they could use it if ever anyone invaded.

Besides there's no way the US could successfully continue to occupy Iraq and invade Iran. They dont have the manpower. Perhaps if they introduced conscription, but then that would be a death sentence for Bush.

 

[HotShot]

There will never be an invasion of Iran. World stock markets (especially the American economy) would collapse. Iran holds a very powerful card and they could use it if ever anyone invaded.

Besides there's no way the US could successfully continue to occupy Iraq and invade Iran. They dont have the manpower. Perhaps if they introduced conscription, but then that would be a death sentence for Bush.

dude iran is shit, economically irrevelantt. thw world stock markets make take slump, but it will climb baack up.

a nuclear bunker buster missile on iran, -purpose to destroy iran nuclear facilities?


THEY DONT WANT TO INVADE IRAN, THEY WANT TO DESTROY IT.

so it is very much possible, america has a lot nuclear weapons, they cost a lot of money to maintain, so realising one would be very economical. so one nuke can do quite a bit of damage in iran. no need to invade. iran has a shit air force, they wont be able to defend. iran has a shit navy, they wont be able to defend (not like the navy can do anything).

anyway, america has all the power and we should listen to whatever they do, cos they have enough nukes to blow the entire world. = THE NEW HITLER.