Iran has balls

[sgreger1]

If the US started a war with Iran, it would be totally stupid. And it would show the US as the agressors, and war mongers. The US forces, along with others can't beat a rag tag group of towel wearing desert dwellers, in what, 10 years now. The US can't even fight the terrorist gangs in the US, nor can they fight the Mexican drug cartels coming across the border. After all these years, we have simply lost in Iraq, and Afganistan. An attack Iran will be a total failure. It's like the powers that be want to destroy the USA, maybe they have a secret agenda. And an attack on Iran would not just be the US vs Iran, it would involve others. I suspect Iran would close the straight of Hormuz(not sure it's called that), and I'd think, they'd throw whatever they they had on Israel, and I think China and Russia might step in to protect their ally, Iran, and their business interests.

Tom, we havn't "won" in Iraq/afghanistan because we havn't really gone in and used any of the big guns. We've been focused on not hurting civilians and are really nothing but a glorified police force. In an actual all out "war" with a real threat like Iran, we would win in half the time. Fighting armies is easy for the US. We beat the Iraqi and the afghan army in a matter of months. We can take down an organized force like Iran in a year easily, with little to no problem, I can guarantee that. It's fighting against insurgents that's the problem. See after you defeat the army and overthrow the government, you then have to deal with the insurgents who are usually ex military guys who've signed up for the private mercenary groups like Al quaida, who are better financed and use better tactics.

Overthrowing the Iranian army would be a piece of cake, it's if they find allies in the fight with other established countries that I am afraid of. Iran is friends with most of the countries in that area and we wouldn't have a good staging area anywhere in the middle east to deploy forces from. Our first objective in any operation is to gain air superiority, but the problem is that it becomes costly to have to fly over 5 countries to get there since we aren't friends with anyone close by. Israel is out best bet as far as staging and they would be pounced on first thing if a war broke out.

I partially think Afghanistan and Iraq may have just been taken over to serve as staging areas to train and resupply troops in case of a war with Iran.

[SNUS'r]

That’s an interesting take on your opinion of why we are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I never thought of it from that angle. You are correct; we’ve been very concerned and conscious about not harming the public in these countries. I believe it’s the right thing to do because we are not at war with a sovereign nation but more of a group of ideological fanatics within a nation.

I’m curious to see what the Israeli reaction is going to be. The last time an Arab country in the region came close to firing up a reactor they flew in and destroyed it.

Could we take on Iran? Without a doubt. Unfortunately I think we’d be stuck there too on a nation building mission for years after the combat mission ended. Would it be a wise move for the current administration? I would say no. Especially with the state of the economy something of that scale could be the tipping point and send the US into the economical abyss.

I think perhaps the best way to deal with Iran is to overthrow them from within. The almighty greenback has a lot of power and everyone has a price.

What gets me about the whole thing is why are the Russians cooperating with them? Maybe its time to slap some UN sanctions on them too. They are in a postion to quell things but yet they choose to assit the Iranians.

[bipolarbear1968]

The U.S. backed Israel would walk all over Iran.

[sgreger1]

That’s an interesting take on your opinion of why we are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. I never thought of it from that angle. You are correct; we’ve been very concerned and conscious about not harming the public in these countries. I believe it’s the right thing to do because we are not at war with a sovereign nation but more of a group of ideological fanatics within a nation.

I’m curious to see what the Israeli reaction is going to be. The last time an Arab country in the region came close to firing up a reactor they flew in and destroyed it.

Could we take on Iran? Without a doubt. Unfortunately I think we’d be stuck there too on a nation building mission for years after the combat mission ended. Would it be a wise move for the current administration? I would say no. Especially with the state of the economy something of that scale could be the tipping point and send the US into the economical abyss.

I think perhaps the best way to deal with Iran is to overthrow them from within. The almighty greenback has a lot of power and everyone has a price.

What gets me about the whole thing is why are the Russians cooperating with them? Maybe its time to slap some UN sanctions on them too. They are in a postion to quell things but yet they choose to assit the Iranians.

1)Israel has a long record of pre-emptive strikes. They tend to take out nuclear threats sooner rather than later. The world generally condones this, and has emboldened Israel, and they know they have the backing of the US. This is good in one way because it surves our purpose, but bad in another way because all this confidence may lead them to provoke a conflict we are not ready to jump into (but will be forced to if it happens).

2) We have been trying to fark with Iran for a long time. Remember the Shah? We've tried overthrowing them from within, we've tried diplomatic talks, we've tried sanctions. Guess what's next.

3) There is a large "tea party" style movement in Iran who is very anti-government. While not the majority, they are a dedicated force and not afraid of tearing shit down. A large segment of Iran is very pro-western and wants better relations with the US, as well as the freedom to do western things like not be stoned for adultery or wear full face veils, listen to rock music without being executed for being "vampires" etc. They never had a woman's rights movement there and gays are still persecuted, therefore it would be strategic to play it like the soviets did and use these discriminated masses of youth to form a revolution against the governnment.

There is a freedom movement going on and we need to use this to our advantage. Going and striking them militarily will unite Iranians against us. We will fair better if we leave them devided and allow their own population to overthrow the regime. Remember Sun Tzu, the ultimate victory is to win by never firing a shot.

Additionally, i'm still on the inactive reserve and I don't feel like parachuting in over Iran any time soon, so hopefully we can do this without a war.

4) As far as the money problem, military campaigns are expensive, HOWEVER, large scale military conflicts are good for the economy. Iraq and Afghanistan don't qualify for that as they are just police jobs and all that money goes to gov contractors. WWII style conflicts turn out great for whoever wins, and would beenfit us for a long time economicaly. So while it may be costly upfront, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the government see war as a way out of our financial woes.





Meanwhile: IRAN'S NUKE PLANT TO START NEXT WEEK

Russia is finally fulfilling it's $1 billion deal to supply Iran with the capability to run their own nuclear plants. They signed the deal in 1995 but Russia has been going slow on purpose in an effort to convince Iran to open up to UN inspectors. If Iran does something stupid, Russia doens't want it coming down on them.