An Act of War?

[Hildegard]

With the current military operations CENTCOM doesn't have nearly as much what is needed for any sort of invasion force...Iran is much stronger then Iraq was in 2003, their landscape is much different, it isn't like in Iraq a vast desert were you can role your Abrams tanks how you please and have clear air support....Iran is rugged and mountain country which is a logistical nightmare for an invader....Iran has learned from past experiences of other countries how to deal with American forces....

 

The US and its allies are going to use air power only, plus special ops...but the question is, can they handle the Iranian nuclear program only by using air power? I don't think so...

If the US somehow uses land invasion as an option, they are just going to lose a lot of money and people...kill a bunch of Iranian soldiers and civilians and quite frankly won't do nothing concrete in terms of any issue...and it is my opinion the US is going to be seen as losers in any scenario.

[Volourn]

Being 'seen' as the loser isn't truly the same as 'being' the loser. R00fles!

[Hildegard]

Being 'seen' as the loser isn't truly the same as 'being' the loser. R00fles!

 

 

Then tell me please how is the US going to achieve its objectives in a conflict with Iran?

Edited April 3, 2007 by Hildegard

[Volourn]

First, we'd have to detemrine what the objective is. L0L

 

What happens if the objective is to show off their power, and so they bomb the crap out of? Hmm.. Mission accomplished.

 

What happens if the objective is to to kill the current powers? That mission is very accomplisable.

 

Now, if the objective is to pacifiy the people than that's likely impossible.

 

 

Heck, most of the Iraq War's objectives *have* been met including the main one which insuring Iraq is a total nonthreat to the US. Mission accomplished there.

 

Yet, people claim that the IW was a complete failure because the perceived goal is different than what some of the main goals actually were.

 

I mean, another stated objective was a full fledge democracy in a peaceful country. Those have yet to be successful but I doubt theyw ere the actual main objectives. Though, the fight for Iraq isn't quite over yet so they have quite failed as of yet.

 

R00fles!

[Weiser_Cain]

A lot of Iran's population is surprisingly liberal. Ahmadinejad isn't exactly universally beloved by the population. The size of the invasion force would depend on the goals of the invaders, but I don't think the invaders would face a fanatical horde of Ahmadinejad zealots. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would happen if he were removed from power. Iran's political system is really weird.

The Iranians have seen close up what happens to a country when the US or 'the West' invades. I think you could count on much stronger resistance than was offered by the Iraqis. Iranians are extremely proud of their cultural heritage and will not willingly see it ransacked.

 

In the view of the Daily Telegraph, these sailors were taken because Tony Blair expressed regret about the slave trade, which apparently makes Britain appear weak in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

Oh, and please steer clear in the discussion of anything that looks like advocating nuclear annihilation, even if not meant seriously.

Resistance isn't an issue if we don't intend to stay. How can this conversation not be about nuclear annihilation, that's sort of the point?

[Sand]

I think the war in Iraq iscoming to an end. At least the US involvement of it. Bush won't compromise, and Congress is becoming more polarized. Even if the deadlock does not get resolved there will be no money to the troops stationed. No resources means troops cannot do their job. If they cannot do their jobs they come home. I really hope the Democrats continue this hammering on Bush and his war. Only the Iraqs can give the Iraqis peace and a demoracy and they can only get it if they work a it. The US was wrong and trying to force it down their throats and we were wrong to invade in the first place.

 

The faster we abandon Iraq to its civil war the better. We can spend those resources on better places, like here at home.

[Dark_Raven]

Yeah for the clowns Congress. Since Bush won't do what we want him to do, we're going to cut off your money Mr. Soldier. So sorry you're on your own.

[Sand]

It is a way to end the war.

 

Congress was willing to compromise. Set up a bill that would give Bush $122 billion but with a timeframe to bring our troops home. Bush stated he is going to veto it. The only alternative is to remove funding altogether. The Democrats want this war to end, to get our troops home, and out of the middle of a civil war we have no business being in the middle of. If Bush was willing to compromise he would have his funding.

 

As Pelosi stated earlier, no more blank checks.

[Volourn]

The Demos don't want to compromise though. That's the problem. They're saying either our way or no way. That's not compromise.

[Sand]

The Demos don't want to compromise though. That's the problem. They're saying either our way or no way. That's not compromise.

 

Oh, what lies!

 

The president stated that he needs money with no time tables.

 

Democrats say "no money and troops home now."

 

COMPROMISE PROPOSED!: $122 billion for funding Iraq but with a time table of majority of troops coming home between March and December of next year.

 

Compromise passed in the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

 

The president's response: VETO!

 

Who isn't compromising, Volourn?

 

Now that the President decided he doesn't wish to compromise on anything the Democrats are doing whatever they can to get the troops out of Iraq, which is what the majority of those who voted in the last election wanted. The Democrats are doing what they can to do the wishes of their constituents who put them in office in the first place. If the President doesn't wish to compromise then why should the Democrats compromise their position on Iraq?

Edited April 4, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

I never said the Prez wanted to compromise; but the Demos don't either. Just be honest. It doesn't even matter what the voters want as the voters don't wnat compromise either. btw, These same voters are the ones who placed the Prez back in the WH.

 

Bush: Want troops to stay in Iraq until our goal(s) are accomplished.

 

DEMOS: NO, they must leave as soon a spossible.

 

Bush: I need money to pay for the mission.

 

DEMOS: Ok, but the troops must leave.

 

Bush: No, that's not good. They need to stay untilt he mission is done.

 

DEMOS: No. they must leave.

 

That's not compromise on eithers' part.

 

Let's be honest.

 

A real compromise would be the DEMOS asking the Prez what exactly are his goals in iraq. Figure out what they feel he's doingw rong in trying to accomplish those goals, write a draft they feel to make that goal reachable and then stick to their guns.

 

That would be a compromise. Afterall, the majority of the DEMOS agreed to the war so they should see it through until the goals are accomplished.

 

Pulling out of Iraq just to spite Bush is retarded nor is it compromise.

[Sand]

They only agreed to the war because they were fools to believe Bush's claims of WMDs in Iraq which has been long since proven false. The goal was to make sure Saddam is not a threat tot he US. He's dead. He's no longer a threat. Mission accomplished. Keep in mind, Volourn, a lot of the Democrats are in office now because they stated they wanted to get our troops out and they got elected on that premise. Its not just the Democrats but the majority of the US people want our troops home. We gave Bush 4 years. He failed. Time to move on.

[Weiser_Cain]

Cut off the funds now. That ends the war and the troops must be brought back home. The idea that it's somehow congresses fault if the troops are left in the field with no funds is the dumbest thing around, congress can't run the war maybe but it sure can end it. If the troops are left out there once funding is cut it's dubya's fault and in my opinion would be yet another impeachable offense.

I'm a firm believer that our army should only fight for the benefit of our country and I don't see that a 'stable' iraq inevitably allied with iran would be beneficial to us. Let Iraq sort out it's problems on it's own. The billions we've spent trying to 'free' iraq could have been better spent freeing ourselves for dependence on the oil the ties us to these people.

[Rosbjerg]

Now they are released.. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also held a powerspeech were he tried to seems merciful and strong at the same time, while still succeeding at stabbing at western culture, by adressing the fact that the the British had put "a mother away from her children" in charge of the mission, which suddenly meant that western cultures are in decline, since we don't respect family values.

 

So Iran won this little conflict imo, by using this holiday (the prophet Muhammeds birthday and Jesus' ressurection) as an excuse for mercy. Nicely played, and it shows us that the middleeast are just as shrewd in their political cunning as even the most skillfull politician in our world.

[Volourn]

He didn't win anything. Sure, he likely impressed ME goods; but I doubt most Westerners bought his crap. When they're released, it would serve him right if the Brits drop a bomb on his palace. They won't; but he'd deserve it. I hope they don't though b/c his staff aka slaves would be needlessly killed for his scumminess.

 

He didn't win because he didn't get anything really substantial out of Britian from this.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Volourn

[Rosbjerg]

This was never aimed at us to begn with.. The soldiers were a means to an end - Irans is trying to assert her power over the Eastern world and to all the would-be powers who's against the western (US) hegemony.

[Gorgon]

Seems to me it was squarely aimed at getting back the Iranian diplomatic mission that was arrested on suspicion of espionage.

 

further, the fact that the prisoners are getting the movie star treatment seems a testament to the insincerity of the charges. If these were really infiltrators they would be interogated rather more vigorously.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Gorgon

[Cantousent]

No matter what, I'm just glad it ended like it did. I sure as hell didn't want to see war between US/UK and Iran. I'm not going to praise Iran over the incident, however. I refuse to pin a medal on the chest of a thief just because he decides to return the goods after the robbery.

 

I'm quite relieved.

[Rosbjerg]

No matter what, I'm just glad it ended like it did. I sure as hell didn't want to see war between US/UK and Iran. I'm not going to praise Iran over the incident, however. I refuse to pin a medal on the chest of a thief just because he decides to return the goods after the robbery.

 

I'm quite relieved.

 

Sorry if it seemed like I was praising him, I most surely wasn't .. I was merely looking at it from a political perspective and from that point of view Iran steered through this conflict quite ingeniously. But it was a cheap trick nonetheless.

[Volourn]

"Iran steered through this conflict quite ingeniously"

 

How though? If it was so ingenious everyone would buy it. The only ones who bought what iran was saying were those who are pro Iranian big wigs anyways. With very few exemptions.

[Sand]

Only the Iranians matter to the Iranians. There was a lot of discontent withthe regular Iranians and this happens. I thikn the Iranians are feeling pretty good about themselves and have a higher opinion of their president, which he was aiming for.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The Iranians have seen close up what happens to a country when the US or 'the West' invades. I think you could count on much stronger resistance than was offered by the Iraqis. Iranians are extremely proud of their cultural heritage and will not willingly see it ransacked.

I'm not a super "U.S.A. IS THE BEST WOOO!" guy, but let's be realistic. As much as the U.S. military may screw up, and as ill-prepared as they were for occupying a nation boiling at the edge of total chaos, they are very good at moving into places and destroying anything that gets in their way during the process. The UK doesn't have the same numbers as the U.S., but they have excellent training and equipment. Any sort of short-term assault would practically be a no-brainer victory for UK or U.S. forces. I mean, there's more to 21st century warfare than destroying things (as we've already seen), but when destroying things is on the menu, Chef Western World is serving up heaping platters.

[Sand]

Drop a few of these on Iran and call it a day.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1106-02.htm

[roshan]

I think an invasion of Iran would be more succesful at establishing a friendly democracy than one of Iraq. Most Iranians I have met have told me that most Iranians are quite unhappy with their theocracy. In fact they made it sound like a good portion of Irans population is just waiting to be invaded by the US.

 

However I dont get what the US troops are still doing in Iraq. What exactly do they hope to acheive over there that they havent already? If the people are still resistant to democracy and absolutely refuse to get along, then how in the world is the continued occupation of the country going to accomplish anything that hasnt already?

[Volourn]

"Most Iranians I have met have told me that most Iranians are quite unhappy with their theocracy."

 

Most Iraqis were unhappy with Hussein too.

 

 

"In fact they made it sound like a good portion of Irans population is just waiting to be invaded by the US."

 

They're waiting because they kinda expect a war to take place sooner, or later.

 

 

"Only the Iranians matter to the Iranians."

 

Huh? Not in 2007. It's a global world for a reason.

 

 

" There was a lot of discontent withthe regular Iranians and this happens. I thikn the Iranians are feeling pretty good about themselves and have a higher opinion of their president, which he was aiming for."

 

I doubt the typical iranian who disliked the Iranian prez have had their opinion chnage dramatically of their prez due to this event sinc eit doesn';t effect their day to day lives at all.

 

 

This little stunt by Iran accomplished nothing. It was a waste of their time, and effort.