Is Iran Next? [Archive] - Military Photos

XShipRider

05-03-2006, 08:31 AM

Ok, so seeing all of whats going on, and in my Political Science Class we've been discussing the current situation in ME, what do you guys think about a war with Iran? Cuz if we do go anywhere next, it will be there. Ideas on:
1. The draft
2. If we go, will anything be done to remove the President from office
3. Anything else you'd like to say

The draft? Are you implying there will or must be one? Or is it an open
question on whether one is necessary?

This is a PS class? What is the basis and relevance of question 2?:roll:
I see they forgot to ask, "If we go, will Congress be impeached in toto?"
Looks like your PS class is a tad one-sided.

I love the impeachment buzz started by Congress and hyped by the media. Pure
fantasy. This is the same media which said Clinton's impeachment would tear the
country apart. Yet Nixon's impeachment was the right thing to do. Impeachment
has never "torn the country apart."

Sorry for the rant and questions but it sounds like your class already has
posed these questions. If so, they're biased in their inference.

Adz

05-03-2006, 08:33 AM

does it have to relate?

You guys don't need a draft, you have too many soldiers as it is.

Superking

05-03-2006, 08:40 AM

Short answer YES with an IF, long answer NO with a BUT......

annihilation

05-03-2006, 09:09 AM

Even if Bush wanted to go to war with Iran, he wont get the support of Congress. No one is willing to help him out on this one. No one is going to turn a blind eye to this as they did with Iraq. So him and cheney could be drooling over it but it just wont happen. I really don't see anything stopping Iran from getting Nukes. Russia and china are to willing to drag their feet on this issue too which makes it even that more difficult for the UN to do something.

So that being said, Welcome Iran to the nuclear club. I will be waiting for your membership fee before we can start your membership process.

Ayura

05-03-2006, 09:17 AM

I think the real question is: Do you want a war with Iran?

Durandal

05-03-2006, 09:34 AM

I think the real question is: Do you want a war with Iran?

And the answer to that is no.

I would make Iraq look like a field trip to an art museum.

That being said, there are the strong possibilities we are seeing the lead up to a strike. There are a lot of hints of behind the scenes prep and the the usual denial that are reminiscent of the lead in into Iraq...

WTF

mogsniper94

05-03-2006, 09:47 AM

I dont see this administration ruling out some Precision strikes.

Like stated previously, that is a rugged country and would be a tougher invasion. If any country is up to the Job its the USA.

BUT
The country probably could be changed more easily with a McDonalds/ MTV attack. I think the youth of IRAN are ready to step into the modern world.

XShipRider

05-03-2006, 09:52 AM

BUT
The country probably could be changed more easily with a McDonalds/ MTV attack. I think the youth of IRAN are ready to step into the modern world.

Yeah, that's it. Here's the chant:

Dumb them down with MTV
then take 'em out with Mickey D's!

Jesse Jackson would be proud.:)

annihilation

05-03-2006, 10:09 AM

Yeah, that's it. Here's the chant:

Dumb them down with MTV
then take 'em out with Mickey D's!

Jesse Jackson would be proud.:)

LOL but higly effective.

Lazy Lob

05-03-2006, 10:18 AM

I think the real question is: Do you want a war with Iran?

Ah young Glass Hoppa, Confucius say: woman who fly upside down have clack up.

Ea$y-8

05-03-2006, 10:21 AM

Hollis

05-03-2006, 10:25 AM

I think the real question is: Do you want a war with Iran?

Interesting question. As much as the Anti-USA/Bush forces believed Bush was chomping at the bit to go war with Saddam, that is NOT SO. Saddam had a number of opportunity to Still be in power and to have avoid this conflict.

Now Look what the Government of Iran has been saying sence 1979. Look what is being said today. It really looks like (can be a faint for other reasons) They are ready and looking for a fight.

Other reason are possibly, "war histeria" allow for greater social oppression in Iran especially against reformers.

jaybird13

05-03-2006, 10:41 AM

Didnt Iran and Syria sign some sort of defense pact? So if we attacked Iran then Syria would get involved.

budgie

05-03-2006, 10:52 AM

I think the real question is: Do you want a war with Iran?

A lot of people here would say yes (if only to themselves) but are not really aware of the consequences.

annihilation

05-03-2006, 10:57 AM

Interesting question. As much as the Anti-USA/Bush forces believed Bush was chomping at the bit to go war with Saddam, that is NOT SO. Saddam had a number of opportunity to Still be in power and to have avoid this conflict.

Now Look what the Government of Iran has been saying sence 1979. Look what is being said today. It really looks like (can be a faint for other reasons) They are ready and looking for a fight.

Other reason are possibly, "war histeria" allow for greater social oppression in Iran especially against reformers.

So then let them be the first to mobillize troops and openly fight someone else. No need to be proactive on this one because bush has nothing to back it up. The public doesn't want to be in Iraq let alone go into Iran.

Adz

05-03-2006, 11:04 AM

Make no mistake any war with Iran (If Iraq is still going on) will require a draft. A war with Iran will make Iraq look like candy land. I could see Israel joining hands with the US of A. I don't know how many other nations will sign on however.

Australia probably will, if John Howard is still around. If only too keep relations with you mob nice and tight. Indonesia is just across the border. I have never trusted them buggars, with their "framing honest aussie tourist by planting drugs on them" policies.

Ea$y-8

05-03-2006, 11:11 AM

UK would probably fallow if they still have Blair or another guy like him. Canada could fallow because this Harper is no solfty.

Adz

05-03-2006, 11:15 AM

Or maybe he is a softy and was peer pressured by your govt :)

Hollis

05-03-2006, 11:21 AM

So then let them be the first to mobillize troops and openly fight someone else. No need to be proactive on this one because bush has nothing to back it up. The public doesn't want to be in Iraq let alone go into Iran.

There are problems, I think Bush is pushing to have a political soluton not a Military.

But it is like a hostage situation, is the gunman who is threatening to shoot the hostage really going to do it. If the conclusion is YES, it is highly believeable, then the Police sniper will take him out. The discussion is probably, "Will Military action be worse than if Iran nukes someone?" and "Can we set by and allow a nuking to take place?"

Right now, I think Iran is the one who will Control this situation as far as what happens.

If your in the Anti-Bush crowd, obviously this won't make sense just like Saddam's ability to prevent military action and forcing a "show down" is ignored by that group.

annihilation

05-03-2006, 11:41 AM

There are problems, I think Bush is pushing to have a political soluton not a Military.

But it is like a hostage situation, is the gunman who is threatening to shoot the hostage really going to do it. If the conclusion is YES, it is highly believeable, then the Police sniper will take him out. The discussion is probably, "Will Military action be worse than if Iran nukes someone?" and "Can we set by and allow a nuking to take place?"

Right now, I think Iran is the one who will Control this situation as far as what happens.

If your in the Anti-Bush crowd, obviously this won't make sense just like Saddam's ability to prevent military action and forcing a "show down" is ignored by that group.

It makes sense and yes I am anti-bush i guess. Don't like many of his policies and the invasion of Iraq. All for afgahnistan though.

Hollis

05-03-2006, 11:50 AM

It makes sense and yes I am anti-bush i guess. Don't like many of his policies and the invasion of Iraq. All for afgahnistan though.

I am very anti-war but I not stupid either. I believe the decission of war in both those cases where in the hands of the Taliban and Saddam.

Like standing up to a bully, sooner or later your gonna have to sock him in the nose. Personally I fault for Saddam decission to "press his luck" was because of allies he had in Europe. Had they shown resolved and did the right thing (not for the money or oil Saddam owed them) Saddam would have probably gone with the UN and averted the military action. As with Now, IRAN HAS THE POWER TO avoid conflict or force it.

Like the kid who socks the Bully.............. do you blame the kid or the Bully?

Bigkat_l

05-03-2006, 01:17 PM

We aren't going to strike Iran, yet. The reason being, they are more capable of defending themselves than the already incapacitated Afghanistan or Iraq, and our military planners clearly revealed thier incompetence with the latter invasion. Attempting another military campaign against a nation with a higher defensive capaciousness would reveal that military planners have learned nothing from thier debauchery in Iraq.

The most logical descision, using thier logic, would be to impose sanctions to starve off Iran, although we should recall, as in Iraq, this can easily change pro-western views among the population. Although, this is a technique that at second glance would seem unappealing to policy makers who favor "action".

I am ambivalent with regard to what course of action is taken, as I feel that there is an apogee that is going to be reached at some point, where the expansion of "freedom" and "democracy" will be seen for what they really are: economic colonialism and "free-market" hegemony. There will never be any great external threat to the United States as a nation, as that is the nature of our "Pax Americana". Any reform or change to this system is going to come from its own population, whether its a socialist movement, worker's movement, or an internal collapse of the systems that are in power now. The acquiescence is going to occur when international escapades and crimes become transparent enough to the population that it motivates them to take action. And I think that, taking action or invoking sanctions on Iran only perpetuates towards this end. Regardless of what choices are made, we can expect to see continued action that will lead to conflict in small bursts across in the south-western and south-central territories of eurasia, hopefully, the American public will come to a realization and take action to reform/disrupt/dismantle the copulation between private businesses and the established framework of governance in this nation.

Ayura

05-03-2006, 01:48 PM

And the answer to that is no.

I would make Iraq look like a field trip to an art museum.

That being said, there are the strong possibilities we are seeing the lead up to a strike. There are a lot of hints of behind the scenes prep and the the usual denial that are reminiscent of the lead in into Iraq...

WTF

:)

The real point of my question is that there are many people on this board who come across as war-enthusiatic people and speak like they enjoy it.

MARINO

05-03-2006, 02:26 PM

http://www.caspianstudies.com/main-images/maps/iran-map.gif

Nobody wants a war with Iran because we cannot win it.
We cannot get in there from Iraq, neither from A-Stan, and if we make a big amphibiuos operation( like D-day)from Persian Gulf then we have to cross the "Montes Zagros" ( don't know the name in English) and that's a big deal, those mountains are very high.
In the other had the army is well organized and people want to fight. Civilians are ready to die.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/iran_map_nuke.gif

mogsniper94

05-03-2006, 02:46 PM

NO war is unwinnable ! The American military can win against any nation on Earth. BUT we must commit to fight a total war without limits ,or mercy.

It just wont be easy.

Bert

05-03-2006, 02:48 PM

IMO.. No war. If anything, it'll stretch to deniable air strikes through proxies. Not Israel. Someone more obscure. Either that, or a missile sub.

MARINO

05-03-2006, 02:50 PM

NO war is unwinnable ! The American military can win against any nation on Earth.

Yeah sure. :lol: after 2 wars, with 2 fronts open, and a lot of men in Korea.
And in this country.
We can try to make this regime fall from inside, with another revolution that's all.

theclash

05-03-2006, 04:05 PM

We can try to make this regime fall from inside, with another revolution that's all.

Agreed. Maybe not with a full-scale revolution though, because that might destabilise the country and let somebody far worse in. Their nuclear capability could be removed with the right kind of special operation.

Certainly something needs to be done to keep Iran's administration off-balance, as a counter to their continued financing of Iraqi factions hindering stability there.

As we say in the UK, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Greek soldier

05-03-2006, 04:12 PM

NO war is unwinnable ! The American military can win against any nation on Earth.

WOW! Is the US Army the Macedonian Phalanx and Bush the new Alexander the Great? rofl

kraf001

05-03-2006, 05:13 PM

WOW! Is the US Army the Macedonian Phalanx and Bush the new Alexander the Great? rofl
I think the right question is that if Iran has became as weak as Persia became in Alexander's time and if Ahmadinejad is the new Codomannus...

TheStorm

05-03-2006, 08:26 PM

You guys don't need a draft, you have too many soldiers as it is.

WTF!? Can you elaborate on this? Many argue that the current precipitous security situation in Iraq has resulted from a lack of enough soldiers to properly lock the country down.

Ea$y-8

05-03-2006, 08:35 PM

WTF!? Can you elaborate on this? Many argue that the current precipitous security situation in Iraq has resulted from a lack of enough soldiers to properly lock the country down.

I can can see where he is coming from. The US has over 1 million troops the problem is those troops are spread all over the world.

Belrick

05-03-2006, 08:41 PM

Sigh.
I think war is now inevitable :(
Simply because of the grave threat to Israels very existance (reinforced by recent rhetoric from Iran), Israel will not allow Iran to gain nukes and will go it alone if they have to. A war in which i can see other countries being dragged into.

Dark days are a coming is my humble opinion.

Hollis

05-03-2006, 08:44 PM

WTF!? Can you elaborate on this? Many argue that the current precipitous security situation in Iraq has resulted from a lack of enough soldiers to properly lock the country down.

That is said a lot, so is it true. Partisan politics is a pain when it comes to knowing what is going on. The President said if the generals ask for more troops, he would send them..........

So I guess people who say that are saying, the President is lieing, or the Generals are idiots and don't know what they are doing.

The issue is not the number of US and Allies Troops, it is the Iraqi ability to take control of their country. If the USA had a million troops in Iraq, they would never become selfdependent, develope the resources and learn to self govern themselves.

The Goal is to have a self standing soverign nation of Iraq.

Adz

05-03-2006, 09:15 PM

WTF!? Can you elaborate on this? Many argue that the current precipitous security situation in Iraq has resulted from a lack of enough soldiers to properly lock the country down.

What Ea$y said. You mob have the second largest defence force in the world. The lack of soldiers to properly lock the country down was because bush and co thought that the current numbers of people there are sufficient to do the job. And they too stubborn to admit they're wrong and send more in.

Not that it would help. HOLLiS has it down to a T

TheStorm

05-03-2006, 09:15 PM

That is said a lot, so is it true. Partisan politics is a pain when it comes to knowing what is going on. The President said if the generals ask for more troops, he would send them..........

So I guess people who say that are saying, the President is lieing, or the Generals are idiots and don't know what they are doing.

I'm not making any claims as to who, if anybody, lied. I'm just using this example to demonstrate that there is hardly an argument to be made for us having too many troops.

I can can see where he is coming from. The US has over 1 million troops the problem is those troops are spread all over the world.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean we have too many troops.

TheStorm

05-03-2006, 09:16 PM

What Ea$y said. You mob have the second largest defence force in the world. The lack of soldiers to properly lock the country down was because bush and co thought that the current numbers of people there are sufficient to do the job. And they too stubborn to admit they're wrong and send more in.

You still didn't answer my question. What is the basis for your assertion that the US has too many troops?

ElHombre

05-03-2006, 09:26 PM

the big question is whether or not bush will attempt to 'wag the dog' with iran.

Adz

05-03-2006, 10:38 PM

You have at least 1.3 million more soldiers than australia as said in wikidpedia. Thats way to many in my book. No one needs an army that big.

Hollis

05-03-2006, 10:57 PM

You have at least 1.3 million more soldiers than australia as said in wikidpedia. Thats way to many in my book. No one needs an army that big.

Well how many National Guard..... How many Army, Navy. Marines, Air Force, or Coast guard.

BTW.. Do you know the Area of responsibility, Missions and etc............

Ea$y-8

05-03-2006, 11:05 PM

You have at least 1.3 million more soldiers than australia as said in wikidpedia. Thats way to many in my book. No one needs an army that big.

In some cases you need a military much bigger than that. If your at war sometimes you need to count your military by Army Group's rather than divisions.

TheStorm

05-03-2006, 11:39 PM

You have at least 1.3 million more soldiers than australia as said in wikidpedia. Thats way to many in my book. No one needs an army that big.

An unqualified opinion. Recently, our military has had some trouble meeting its recruiting targets. I'll take the word of the professionals over yours - and the professionals definitely do not want to see a reduction in the size of our military.

Ea$y-8

05-03-2006, 11:42 PM

As I have said before if we march into Iran without completing our work in Iraq you can bet your soul that the draft will return. I believe the draft would be a good thing for the military and the US as a whole.

Creeper

05-03-2006, 11:47 PM

War > no. Strike(s) > sure-why not. Be back for dinner ! Remember the dumb ass in a little country in the ME, starts with a 'L' ?
Impeach 'Dubya B' ? Huh? You must live on the west coast usa. LOL!
What did i leave out?
Oh yeah- The draft. sure I'll take a pitcher of anything except Bud.

Adz

05-04-2006, 01:06 AM

An unqualified opinion. Recently, our military has had some trouble meeting its recruiting targets. I'll take the word of the professionals over yours - and the professionals definitely do not want to see a reduction in the size of our military.

I'd take their word over mine aswell. You still have way to many troops :)

Ea$y-8

05-04-2006, 01:10 AM

I'd take their word over mine aswell. You still have way to many troops :)

Dude, What is with you? Which each post it becomes clear you have something against the USA.

Adz

05-04-2006, 01:26 AM

Nothing against them....but I still stand by my repetative statement. Besides I'm like you. I'm proud of my country

GroznyConquerer

05-04-2006, 01:38 AM

Draft - not going to happen - not while those wackos in the universities are still there, and their proteges are still running around (asking to be whacked) - we've all seen the bad side of a draft before.
Remove which President? Ahmendijahblahblah? or Bush? (frikkin wet dream for some here)
It would be extremely stupid to try and charge into Iran within 5 years...USA will stage 1 or more Terror attack/s in thier own nation to get the people to be infavor of attacking Iran.

Adz

05-04-2006, 01:54 AM

Now thats just ridiculous. Staging terrorist threats. They'll hire terrorists to attack. Get it right p-)

MARINO

05-04-2006, 02:51 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel attacks their nuclear facilities( Remember Tamuz) another thing is a massive attack,a war, that's impossible to do.

Durandal

05-04-2006, 07:53 AM

Good lord...all this talk...

A) Yes, the U.S. has a large military. Yes, its over a million people. The question is, how many of those are ground troops and of those, how many are actually combat troops. A good chunk of them are navy, you know, the people that make sure sea lanes are open to everyone around the world.

B) There will be no draft. Politicians, right now, are turning on their masters in fear of the political fall out from rising gas prices. What kind of nightmare do you think a draft would create.

C) We have no military ability to put enough troops in Iran so can the silly talk like we could. Iraq has depleted our large scale combat ability. Iraq is it people and we are going to be there for quite some time.

Add to all of this the Presidents rather hollow words (and lets be honest they were hollow considering that highway bill he signed) about spending he delivered at Congress...

We might strike Iran, I think that would be more of a nightmare than biding our time and doing such a thing when we have lessened our need for oil. Right now Iran has our nuts in their hand because of a dependence that could have been ended, or at least lessened over the past 30 years, but we have never had elected leaders that were not tools of the big oil companies.

Now we pay the piper.