The withdraw of our troupes in Irack makes the perfect opportunity to focus on Iran and take out the man who want's the bomb. It will only be a few years before Majitagod will be able to launch atomic missiles at us we need to take him out now before he has the chance. I know it will cost a lot of money but freedom isn't cheap. so come spring support our March to war against tieroney.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DQ44bx1xuw"]Brian Lilley & John Robson: Tehran's Terrorism - YouTube[/ame]
OK, I think I figured out what was intended. Here is my translation: The withdrawal of our troops in Iraq makes the perfect opportunity to focus on Iran and take out the man who wants the bomb. It will only be a few years before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be able to launch atomic missiles at us we need to take him out now before he has the chance. I know it will cost a lot of money but freedom isn't cheap. so come spring support our march to war against tyranny. OK, and now, the reality. First, I would love to hear how we are going to invade Iran, if we no longer have bases in Iraq. Please tell me, how are we going to get there? Close our eyes and wish ourselves there? And as far as a nuclear missile, Iran is a long ways away from that. Their longest range missiles only have a range from 2,000-2,500 KM. They are a threat to the region, but not a threat to the United States. It will be decades, if ever, before they can be a direct threat against us. Their longest range missile can't even hit London, let alone Washington.
Iran's much stronger than Iraq and would much tougher to hold after the war was over. Such a war would be very expensive. Also Sadam had very few friends and while Iran's not loved it would get a lot of international support if it was attacked much more than Iraq did.
If it is so much stronger, why were the two nations deadlocked in a 10 year long war? Most Iranian equipment other then their missiles is rather antiquated. Their Iranian made tank (the Zulfiqar) even uses a lot of componants from the Korean War era M-48 Patton, and the gun from a T-72. I seriously doubt that their land forces are very much of a threat. And their Air Force is not much better. Their most common fighters are 1960's era F-4 and F-5 fighters, followed by 1960's era Su-24, and 1970's era F-14 and MiG-29 fighters.
I wish you would take yourself, your money and your kids to go fight adn die over there and leave the rest of us Americans alone. Iran is not the threat to the American people. Our government is.
You did bring up some good counter arguments to my position. I have to admit the Iran Iraq war was a draw. However I think that today's Iran is still a lot stronger than 2003 Iraq. It's larger size and population is a major difference, it would cost a lot to occupy such a country. Also I would guess that the people of Iran would be much more united if they faced an attack or an occupation after defeat than were the Iraqis of 2003. I could be wrong but don't think I am. Last I think that China would view this as a threat to Her interests which wasn't the case with the Iraq war (might be true of Russia also).
Oh I think we have the strength that we could defeat Iran- similarly to how we defeated Iraq. You know- a rather quick campaign to defeat their conventional forces, then 10 years of American troops being killed by IED's and massive amounts of American money being spent, and meanwhile our financial obligations to pay for the medical bills for our thousands and thousands of wounded vets secretely accumulate. However, we have even less- if thats possible- reason to invade Iran than we did Iraq. We do not know yet know all the negative effects of our Iraqi invasion on the region- other than it made Iran stronger. I am hoping this is all rhetoric. Iran is not a threat to the United States- Iran likes to talk big, but it is merely a regional power. I am tired of the U.S. projecting power without a clearly defined and eminent threat to the United States. Frankly in my opinion there are two countries in the world that are actual threats to the United States- Pakistan and North Korea. Pakistan because they have actual nukes and their government is far from stable- if the government fell, I could see nukes being lost, or a war between Pakistan and India could escalate to nuclear- which would damage the U.S. in other ways. North Korea because they too have nukes and we do not know enough about their motivations or fears.
Population will not make a bit of difference at all. Iraq had a large population as well, and they still absolutely crumbled. A modern conflict with Iran (not the WWII type mess of the Iran-Iraq War) would be one of rapid movements and precision strikes. And it would not be aimed at the population, but at the military and infrastructure of the nation. They may have a giant population, what they lack is the ability to train and equip them, as well as the ability to move them around and the heavy equipment to turn them into an effective army. If you look at both Gulf War I and II, Iraq did try to use their numbers. However, the US simply refused to play that game. They would have an Armoured column move wide and around infantry units, and keep going. Then the follow-up troops would take the surrender of such units, cut off from all supply and command. All they could do was surrender, because they were totally cut-off, and they had the choice of surrender or die. I mean, you had units that famously tried to surrender to drones and aircraft. In the Gulf War, over 86,000 soldiers surrendered. They had been put into positions to try and repel the US assault, but found themselves doing absolutely nothing when the US instead moved 10 miles to the North, leaving them doing nothing but defending empty desert. Yes, they have a lot of people, and could bring up even more. And that is great for Warsaw Pact doctrine on the offense. But in a defensive battle against US forces, it is pretty much worthless. Because the US simply avoids such large formations, cuts them off, and surrounds them. And without the vehicles and tanks needed to break out of such pockets (which Iran lacks), it is surrender or die. [/QUOTE] Also I would guess that the people of Iran would be much more united if they faced an attack or an occupation after defeat than were the Iraqis of 2003. I could be wrong but don't think I am. Last I think that China would view this as a threat to Her interests which wasn't the case with the Iraq war (might be true of Russia also). [/QUOTE] A lot of people in Iran are tired of their corrupt government. Look at the massive protests of a few years ago during the elections. Look at the death of Neda Agha-Soltan. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVR2rLLqYJw"]RIP NEDA- graphic story! Iran protest! girl shot by militia - YouTube[/ame] And China will not and can not do a thing. The most they could do is place an embargo on the US. And that would not do much against the US, but will cripple their own economy. They are not that stupid. And with their lack of transportation, they could not put more then a token force into Iran. Something that would likely start a US embargo, and collapse their economy.
The US military could win any battle against Iran but this war is still a disaster for the US. Iran doesn't have to win battles (just either the war or the peace). I'm sure a lot of people there don't like their government (I know I wouldn't if I lived there). This doesn't mean they wouldn't fight if attacked. Iran hasn't attacked the US and we wouldn't have much support if we attacked them (we would also be very wrong to do so). It's true China couldn't send an Army to fight us but a trade embargo would be a pretty significant action. We don't just buy from China we sell a lot. Everyone whose job depends on imports from or exports to China would be out of a job. I'm sure China and Russia would also help Iran as much as they could short of sending ground troops. I don't think we would risk attacking Chinese or Russian ships unless they attacked us first the danger to us is just too high and the value of winning such a war is too low.
War in Iran may become another Vietnam. I don't want a shame for USA. There will be a lot of casualties and victims amongst civil people. The world will think about US as agressor.
Iran doesn't pose any problem on the military side. Our equiptment is far superior plus we have 10 years under our belt of experience recently. The problem is occupying which would take far too long and far too much money and there is no support for doing this again in a middle eastern country. Our best bet is to just go in there and destroy all the nuke facilities than leave them alone. They will jump up and down and scream for awhile but their nuke capability will be gone for awhile and that's good enough.
We'd be bogged down in Iran for decades just the way the Brits were bogged down in Iraq in the 1920s. Destroying their nuke capability is problematic.. they have 22 targets all over the country and NOT out in the boondocks. We'd have to kill thosands of civilians.
A war with Iran would only bring a country that is almost bankrupt totaly bankrupt. Iran will not attack the U.S. Don't beleive everything you hear on CNN. It is talked about more in this radio broadcast http://www.blogtalkradio.com/urbanwarzone/2012/01/25/urban-war-zone-ep-8-war-with-iran-1
Iran has a mostly democratic government, complete with elections and a parliament and everything. They also have some legitimate grievances against the US, including Operation Ajax, our support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and our support for kings and dictators of Sunni countries, especially our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Maybe we should realize the error of our ways; apologize for our past screw-ups; dump Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as allies; lift sanctions against Iran; and try to get the Iranians on our side.
Oh yes, they are so democratic that they had massive protests (including where people were killed by the Iranian security forces) when the last election was rigged. And no, we will never be their ally again. For those to young to remember, we were their ally at one time. However, they had this revolution about 33 years ago, and now to them we are the "Great Satan". Your post shows a great lack of understanding of both the history of the region, and the political climate that exists there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Iraq we were fighting the terrorist groups present and not the Iraqi's army so you can't compare the Iran-Iraq war. Second off the fighting in Iraq was guerrilla warfare, which I personally feel would be less prevalent in Iran if we went to war. If we go to war with them, shouldn't we support our soldiers regardless if we agree with it or not. They're the one's that are fighting it, we're not. So if we go to war, support our boys on the front line, and if we don't be glad a mom doesn't have to worry about losing her son. This is America, we should stand united regardless if its war or peace time.
War with Iran will not bankrupt this country. America is the greatest country in the world and no one has the resolve we do. Over through of the Iranian government will break the strong hold OPEC has on the gas prices witch will improve our economy.