NationStates Jolt Archive

Is Iran the next target of America's War on Terror?

I don't know, but golly I hope so, for the sake of the people who live there.

I don't know, but golly I hope so, for the sake of the people who live there.

All I have to say is:

:headbang:

I think that iran is turning out to look a lot like iraq looked about 10 years ago with the violated resolutions and suspicious activities. It would seem to me though, that if the united states actualy engages in military conflict with iran it will be in the more distant future. It takes time for things like this to reach a boiling point ( like iraq--12 years of problems), so unless somthing drastic happens dont expect anything from our government' military in regard to iran any time soon.

The war for Israel and the war for the oil robber barons demand Iranian blood be split!

If we go to war again, the likely targets are Sudan, and North Korea. Sudan has been committing genocide for years, and has sheltered Osama bin Laden in the past. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, and is likely to sell them for hard currency. Iran can be dealt with by supporting liberal elements in the population in a revolution against the Mullahs.

i just simply agree with that

The war for Israel and the war for the oil robber barons demand Iranian blood be split!

"the war for the oil robber barons"---what on earth are you talking about?

and israel would not be effected heavily by a united states war with iran.

"the war for the oil robber barons"---what on earth are you talking about?

and israel would not be effected heavily by a united states war with iran.


Hezbollah is based out of Lebanon and launches attacks against Israel, they are backed by Iran as Hezbollah is a shiite group.

our military is under a lot of stress and doing a lot of work thse days. we simply do not have the available resources to get into antoher conflict. at least right now.

Hezbollah is based out of Lebanon and launches attacks against Israel, they are backed by Iran as Hezbollah is a shiite group.

sure, but as we have seen with iraq, when one terrorist regime is teared down, the former civilians will often take its place. I see what you mean though.

It should be noted that there is a large reform movement in Iran, both social and political. It is getting to the point where the clerics are starting to reject a lot of applications to run for political office because there are so many reformists trying to run.

I'd agree with going to war with Sudan. The whole world can see what's going on there, whereas with countries such as North Korea and Iran, you can't see the human rights violations etc without having people in there. And it's not very likely that we will, due to the governments of these nations.

If there was war with Sudan however, it would have to be under the UN flag. For the sake of international relations, the USA and UK cannot go it alone, along with many other countries (whose help is much appreciated), the UN would have to be involved fully. And, as soon as possible, if Darfur keeps ignoring what's going on, or at least trying to, things WILL get worse a lot quickly.

If we go to war again, the likely targets are Sudan, and North Korea. Sudan has been committing genocide for years, and has sheltered Osama bin Laden in the past. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, and is likely to sell them for hard currency. Iran can be dealt with by supporting liberal elements in the population in a revolution against the Mullahs.

Personally, I doubt the US would ever go to war/invade an African nation. They've been committing genocide in places all over that continent for decades and it barely makes the news. I agree with you on how to handle Iran. North Korea, IMO, is the one to be concerned about. If I understand correctly, one of their primary sources of income is selling weapons/missiles.

Personally, I doubt the US would ever go to war/invade an African nation. They've been committing genocide in places all over that continent for decades and it barely makes the news. I agree with you on how to handle Iran. North Korea, IMO, is the one to be concerned about. If I understand correctly, one of their primary sources of income is selling weapons/missiles.


North Korea cannot even feed their own people, give them ten more years tops and they'll fall apart.

We should have gone in there in 1979 when Iran committed an act of war against the US. We had an oddball in office then and that was that....

North Korea cannot even feed their own people, give them ten more years tops and they'll fall apart.

Yeah, fall apart, or invade the south. They have enough artillery to level Seoul in the course of a few hours. They have troops and a battle plan to cross the DMZ fast and seize control of vital supply, communications, and defense assets, and they can use the threat of nuclear attack on Japan and the US to keep the world out. Kim Jong Il won't let his country collapse without taking that one last gamble.

Yeah, fall apart, or invade the south. They have enough artillery to level Seoul in the course of a few hours. They have troops and a battle plan to cross the DMZ fast and seize control of vital supply, communications, and defense assets, and they can use the threat of nuclear attack on Japan and the US to keep the world out. Kim Jong Il won't let his country collapse without taking that one last gamble.

I agree...I was in South Korea when his father died. We thought we were going to be fighting at any time then. It was a very tense time.

our military is under a lot of stress and doing a lot of work thse days. we simply do not have the available resources to get into antoher conflict. at least right now.
my thoughts exactly
in order to invade a country as large as iran we would have to institute the draft and spend a good amount of time training the conscriptees

North Korea, Sudan, or Iran? No, no, and no. For the following reasons.

Sudan: The government is making alot of noise, but I highly doubt we'd send soldiers to die over the fate of a bunch of landless peasants in a country with no strategic value to the US or the economy. If that were the case, almost all of West Africa would already be an American protectorate. Besides, Sudan's government and civil society, even its very borders, are so intensely screwed up that we'd have even less of a chance of fixing it than we have in Iraq now.

North Korea: Too many soldiers, too many nukes, too big a chance of pissing off China. I doubt Bush is willing to take the gamble that they actually have nuclear warheads.. even if they can't hit the US, they could always plug a military base in Japan or somesuch and make a real mess of things.

Iran: Also unlikely. Iraq's army, or at least the rank and file, was primarily drawn from oppressed nationalities like the Shiites who had little loyalty to the central government, hence one of the many reasons they broke and fled. Iran's military hasn't been crippled by a decade of sanctions, it's fairly strong and large, probably sufficiently loyal, not to mention the country's sheer size and the fact that our military is already drastically overextended.

So yea, I think the War On Terror, in the sense of physical warfare between nationstates and opposing armies, will be on hold for just a little bit.

North Korea, Sudan, or Iran? No, no, and no. For the following reasons.

Sudan: The government is making alot of noise, but I highly doubt we'd send soldiers to die over the fate of a bunch of landless peasants in a country with no strategic value to the US or the economy. If that were the case, almost all of West Africa would already be an American protectorate. Besides, Sudan's government and civil society, even its very borders, are so intensely screwed up that we'd have even less of a chance of fixing it than we have in Iraq now.

North Korea: Too many soldiers, too many nukes, too big a chance of pissing off China. I doubt Bush is willing to take the gamble that they actually have nuclear warheads.. even if they can't hit the US, they could always plug a military base in Japan or somesuch and make a real mess of things.

Iran: Also unlikely. Iraq's army, or at least the rank and file, was primarily drawn from oppressed nationalities like the Shiites who had little loyalty to the central government, hence one of the many reasons they broke and fled. Iran's military hasn't been crippled by a decade of sanctions, it's fairly strong and large, probably sufficiently loyal, not to mention the country's sheer size and the fact that our military is already drastically overextended.

So yea, I think the War On Terror, in the sense of physical warfare between nationstates and opposing armies, will be on hold for just a little bit.


You seriously overestimate Iran's military might. Their military is using obsolete soviet armor and aircraft. They are not anywhere near as well trained as US troops. They are largely a conscript force. Not professionals, just kids waiting until they can get out of the army and start a family. Even with our forces stretched thin, we could wipe the Iranian military off the map. We just couldn't occupy the land.
The extent of our military involvement would be to cripple the regime's military and use precision air power to hit likely WMD production and storage facilities. The major risk would be that a nuke would escape destruction and be shipped accross the border to pakistan or afghanistan where Al Quaeda would send it to the US. Our best intel says that Iran has no nukes yet. A quick strike on their nuclear plants might prevent them from ever getting them.

North Korea is the biggest threat, and should have been addressed years ago. The longer we wait the worse the situation will become. A preemptive strike with stealth aircraft and ground penetrating "bunker buster" munitions could conceivably end North Korea's nuclear threat, but only if we can get a fix on where the weapons are being stored.

Sudan would be a good option because our involvement would be limited to protecting the refugee camps and using air power to punish the government. The rebels in the south could act as our boots on the ground to topple the Khartoum regime. Those Christians and Animists are out for blood after being attacked and oppressed for so long by the muslims.

Is Iran the next target of America's War on Terror?

Iran is on the brink of reform for the better. An armed conflict would only set things backward.

The next few years will be critical for the direction Iran is going to take and therefore what should be done about it.

We should have gone in there in 1979 when Iran committed an act of war against the US. We had an oddball in office then and that was that....

Yeah, but no one wanted to risk upsetting the rest of the Arab countries or the Soviet Union. Thank God for Saddam, though.

Nrth Korea has proven its missiles/warheads (whatever term) can hit Alaska. So yes they can nuke the US if they get attacked.
It was a dud for target practice but it landed in Alaska so that prove they have the range.

So Korea is a dangerous place, can we risk attackung them?

Nrth Korea has proven its missiles/warheads (whatever term) can hit Alaska. So yes they can nuke the US if they get attacked.
It was a dud for target practice but it landed in Alaska so that prove they have the range.

So Korea is a dangerous place, can we risk attackung them?


as for military Assets in ALaska they could hit?

We have one Infantry Brigade
an Airbase, and yes they could hit the pipeline, thats the only thing they could really do though with those nukes. Hitting Alaska and Say Hitting Seattle are a bit different.


The nukes biggest threat would be against the 2nd Infantry Division and the Supporting Brigades and all of our Naval Assets in Japan.

I hope the North Doesn't go South though, I've gotta couple of Buddies over there. Ones up north by the border the other is down South.

You seriously overestimate Iran's military might. Their military is using obsolete soviet armor and aircraft. They are not anywhere near as well trained as US troops. Ever heard of the Revolutionary Guard? Iran is a regional power and that cannot be ignored.

By the way, most of Iran's military equipment is actually American (supplied to the Shah).

North Korea is the biggest threat, and should have been addressed years ago. The longer we wait the worse the situation will become. A preemptive strike with stealth aircraft and ground penetrating "bunker buster" munitions could conceivably end North Korea's nuclear threat, but only if we can get a fix on where the weapons are being stored. It seems your another armchair soldier.

If the US even touches the DPRK, you can say goodbye to the people of Seoul.

Yeah, but no one wanted to risk upsetting the rest of the Arab countries or the Soviet Union. Thank God for Saddam, though. The USSR backed Iraq against Iran aswell.

The USSR backed Iraq against Iran aswell.

Yes, Iran was a desestabilizing force for the Sovitet Republics in the Caspian region, that doesn't mean they would have stood by if the US directly invaded Iran.

the likely targets ... and North Korea.

If the US goes into N. Korea, they will lose another jungle guerilla war, like vietnam. That is why China and Korea can do what t6hey want. Lost wars loose elections, won wars win elections, even if they are pathetic wars for no good reason.

If the US goes into N. Korea, they will lose another jungle guerilla war, like vietnam. That is why China and Korea can do what t6hey want. Lost wars loose elections, won wars win elections, even if they are pathetic wars for no good reason.
You obviously don't know much about North Korea. Its terrain is nothing like that of Vietnam, and the people of North Korea now are much different than the people of Vietnam 30 years ago. Would the people that were and are being brutally oppressed by one of the harshest regimes on earth really support and fight for them? A lot of the people in Vietnam were fighting for a cause, for independence, and supported the communists, and they didn't know what was in store for them once the communists took over. The North Korean government would have to rely almost only on its regular army, which would be destroyed easily by the South Korean army alone...

I think the US nation building in the middle east should end with Iraq. Once Iraq is on its feet as a democratic nation (as democratic a muslim nation can get), it will be the sentinal against Iran. No love between those two countries. I believe the US should start looking in China's direction. I believe the next threat to the security of the US will come from there.

We should have gone in there in 1979 when Iran committed an act of war against the US. We had an oddball in office then and that was that....
And all the hostages would have been killed and then what?

Are you going to go to war with every country that takes hostages?

BTW, the US didn't seem to mind supplying weapons to Iran AFTER the hostage taking incident....such hypocrisy!!

Ever heard of the Revolutionary Guard? Iran is a regional power and that cannot be ignored.

By the way, most of Iran's military equipment is actually American (supplied to the Shah).

It seems your another armchair soldier.

If the US even touches the DPRK, you can say goodbye to the people of Seoul.
The equipment we sold to the shah is from the 1970s. Outdated. Since then they bought from the soviets. The F14s we sold them were disabled before the boeing engineers left the country. They might be able to get one or two up but that's it. They use soviet tanks and aircraft. The information is out there, look it up. The revolutionary guards may be commited fighters, but they are the minority. Also they don't train as hard as US troops. Training takes money for wear and tear on equipment, fuel, and ordinance spent. The US is top notch because we spend the money. Iran is third rate at best. It doesn't take much to be a regional power in most parts of the world. Most armies are orders of magnitude behind the US and European powers.

Ever heard of the Revolutionary Guard? Iran is a regional power and that cannot be ignored.

By the way, most of Iran's military equipment is actually American (supplied to the Shah).

It seems your another armchair soldier.

If the US even touches the DPRK, you can say goodbye to the people of Seoul.
Check my previous posts on this thread. I already said that the north could destroy seoul in a matter of hours with artilery fire.

BTW Armchair soldier? what are you, active duty?

I think Iran is. It is the biggest threat in the Middle East, a known sanctuary of al-Qaeda, and most importantly, it seems ready for a liberal society. However, I don't know what is the most likely.
The first possibility is a preemptive strike. However, with the current army situation, I don't see that likely. The next is a US-led coalition operating under the auspicies of the UN Security Concil, like in the Korean War. I don't know if that is likely either, as the UNSC is currently unwilling to act. The third, and most likely, is that the US is drawn in. Israel has hinted that it may have a preemptive strike should Iran get far enough, as it did with Iraq in 1981. With US troops in the region, however, I find it hard for the US to stay out of an Iran-Israeli war. It'd cause massive unrest in the Muslim world, and destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, Iranian troops and missiles need to use Iraq in order to get to Israel. It's very likely to happen, but I personally think it's a year away. But should war break out, this will make the current situation in Iraq seem like a birthday party.

The equipment we sold to the shah is from the 1970s. Outdated. Since then they bought from the soviets. The F14s we sold them were disabled before the boeing engineers left the country. They might be able to get one or two up but that's it. They use soviet tanks and aircraft. The information is out there, look it up. The revolutionary guards may be commited fighters, but they are the minority. Also they don't train as hard as US troops. Training takes money for wear and tear on equipment, fuel, and ordinance spent. The US is top notch because we spend the money. Iran is third rate at best. It doesn't take much to be a regional power in most parts of the world. Most armies are orders of magnitude behind the US and European powers.
I think any of their planes, even the F-14s, can be swept away. The outgoing F-16s have never lost in air-to-air combat, and starting this year, most of the Air Force's fighters are the super advanced F-22 Raptors. Obtaining air superiority in Iran should be a breeze.

The only 'good' wars we have fought are wars where are hands were forced. Where the outcry of the people was louder than the jubuliant six shooters blasting skyward from the neocons. War is not something we can ever really choose to do. War is the most drastic and serious thing a country can ever do but our government as it stands now doesn't seem to realize that. If we were to go to war with Iran, it would make our wars with Iraq, Panamana, Vietnam, Granada, and Afgahnistan look like schoolyard fist fights. Not only are they almost certainly nuclear ready but they have a required service of duty for all citizens which also puts them on a form of permanent reserve, and they are 5 times the population of Iraq. It would be like jamming an erect penis into the soft spot of a hornets nest and expecting something other than instant mastubatorial gratification. War should never be an option. America should fight the fight it needs to fight over here until the wailing cry of the world beckons us to fight once again for the causes of justice and peace.

"It would be like jamming an erect penis into the soft spot of a hornets nest and expecting something other than instant mastubatorial gratification."

BWAHAHA. I love it. Mind if I occasionally appropriate a variation of that phrase in conversation every once in awhile?

The only 'good' wars we have fought are wars where are hands were forced. Where the outcry of the people was louder than the jubuliant six shooters blasting skyward from the neocons. War is not something we can ever really choose to do. War is the most drastic and serious thing a country can ever do but our government as it stands now doesn't seem to realize that. If we were to go to war with Iran, it would make our wars with Iraq, Panamana, Vietnam, Granada, and Afgahnistan look like schoolyard fist fights. Not only are they almost certainly nuclear ready but they have a required service of duty for all citizens which also puts them on a form of permanent reserve, and they are 5 times the population of Iraq. It would be like jamming an erect penis into the soft spot of a hornets nest and expecting something other than instant mastubatorial gratification. War should never be an option. America should fight the fight it needs to fight over here until the wailing cry of the world beckons us to fight once again for the causes of justice and peace.
But that part is easy. Destroying large forces is the US's specialty. The hardpart is if we have to occupy it afterwards. I think that for a month or two, Iran may be under US control until everything's sorted out. However, after that, I'm optimistic that there are those who are capable of running the country successfully, and US forces will have but a small presence, mostly to help coordinate the Iraq and Central Asia theaters. Plus, the US has learned a very valuable lesson in Iraq: don't disband the army.

If we go to war again, the likely targets are Sudan, and North Korea. Sudan has been committing genocide for years, and has sheltered Osama bin Laden in the past. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, and is likely to sell them for hard currency. Iran can be dealt with by supporting liberal elements in the population in a revolution against the Mullahs.

You mean like when we went in to Rwanda to stop the genocide there? Riiiight. This administration cares that a bunch of poor black people who can't buy our stuff are getting killed? I'll believe that when monkeys fly out of my ass. North Korea ALREADY HAS NUKES, so we won't be invading them any time soon - it's a lose-lose situation and Kim Jong-Il is crazy enough to detonate nukes on his own troops just to make a point. Also, given that we just rounded up a week of multilateral talks with them and have another week scheduled for September, I don't think we'll be pursuing the military option here. Iran is a much more likely target, in that we can crush their air force and they don't have nuclear weapons to lob in our direction. However, they have a reserve of some 20,000,000 fighting age men, so I think that when we do go in there, we'll get our asses handed to us. But look at the rhetoric being stumped about by Bush's policy wonks. Something is definitely going to happen on that front, and it won't be pretty. For us.

"the war for the oil robber barons"---what on earth are you talking about?

and israel would not be effected heavily by a united states war with iran.

Umm... I call bullshit. Israel would SO be affected heavily. Especially since the avowed goal of the U.S. strike would be to prevent Iran's going nuclear. Let's not forget that Israel has pre-emptively blown up nuclear reactors in both Iraq and Iran in the '80s. Israel is QUITE determined to remain the sole undeclared nuclear power in the Middle East.

Read Fox ppl:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126955,00.html

They're already priming the American public with excuses as to why Iran is next. Notice in the article, while lots is said about the 9/11 terrorists travelling thru Iran (how else were they going to get to Afghanistan?) nothing is mentioned about the fact 11 of them were Saudis. But then the Saudi defacto leader gave Pres Bush and his lovely family US$130 000 worth of gifts and jewellery last year alone:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/03/1091476447622.html?oneclick=true

Also noted is a reference to Lebanese Hezbollah, who aparently have killed more Americans than Al Quaeda (b4 9/11 at least). Of course, this info isn't sourced but hey do you really expect Fox to question a government official?
And of course their Nuclear research - but it's a bit late to do much about that. Surely the US should have stopped Pakistan from selling them the material and knowledge in the first place.

And as for this quote:
President Bush said Monday the United States was exploring whether Iran had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We're digging into the facts to see if there was one," Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved ... I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it's a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."

See, they'll putting up reasons already! And this time they're going for everything, including their human rights record so as to not have the problem with Iraq and those darn pesky disappearing WMDs. I love the 'digging into facts' bit - just have to change 'digging into' to 'manipulating' to get the real story, but then maybe I'm a bit cynical of US intelligence.

Finally:
My suspicion is, in September we'll really have evidence that Iran is lying through their teeth,"

just in time for the Presidential elections. How coincidental.

You seriously overestimate Iran's military might. Their military is using obsolete soviet armor and aircraft. They are not anywhere near as well trained as US troops. They are largely a conscript force. Not professionals, just kids waiting until they can get out of the army and start a family. Even with our forces stretched thin, we could wipe the Iranian military off the map. We just couldn't occupy the land.

Are you kidding. You do realize that the U.S. troops in Iraq are RUNNING OUT OF BULLETS, yes? 20 million dudes with pointed sticks are probably going to be able to mess up 100,000 soldiers who don't have bullets in their guns.

Each U.S. soldier would have to personally kill 200 Iranians with his pocket knife.

And if the U.S. cannot occupy a country, it has no business attacking it. That is UNCONSCIONABLE. You do not go into a country, blow it to hell, and then leave it to its own devices. We did that in WWI with Germany, and look what happened: The Weirmahr Republic gave way to the Third Reich.

The only 'good' wars we have fought are wars where are hands were forced. Where the outcry of the people was louder than the jubuliant six shooters blasting skyward from the neocons. War is not something we can ever really choose to do. War is the most drastic and serious thing a country can ever do but our government as it stands now doesn't seem to realize that. If we were to go to war with Iran, it would make our wars with Iraq, Panamana, Vietnam, Granada, and Afgahnistan look like schoolyard fist fights. Not only are they almost certainly nuclear ready but they have a required service of duty for all citizens which also puts them on a form of permanent reserve, and they are 5 times the population of Iraq. It would be like jamming an erect penis into the soft spot of a hornets nest and expecting something other than instant mastubatorial gratification. War should never be an option. America should fight the fight it needs to fight over here until the wailing cry of the world beckons us to fight once again for the causes of justice and peace.

The whole idea of Americans as "reluctant warriors" is a COMPLETE fallacy. The Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and Gulf War II are all proof positive that Americans are ready and willing to be aggressors. I'd even go further to say that we deliberately provoked the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War. I don't know enough about the Korean War to proffer an opinion there. The only wars where we "reluctantly" went to battle were the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the two World Wars. Note that the United States has been in 12 major wars in its 228 years of existence. That's a major conflict every 19 years, and only four of those, with the possible inclusion of Gulf War I which is open to debate, did we not pick. And I'm not even counting The Balkans, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, and such.

You seriously overestimate Iran's military might. They are not anywhere near as well trained as US troops. Not professionals, just kids waiting until they can get out of the army and start a family.
Sorry to bring this up Joey P, but aren't a lot of the US troops in Iraq National Guard? i.e. Just kids who joined up not expecting to see action and thought of it as a way to serve their community, save some money and get free Collge education, before leaving and starting a family.

The whole idea of Americans as "reluctant warriors" is a COMPLETE fallacy. The Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and Gulf War II are all proof positive that Americans are ready and willing to be aggressors. I'd even go further to say that we deliberately provoked the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War. I don't know enough about the Korean War to proffer an opinion there. The only wars where we "reluctantly" went to battle were the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the two World Wars. Note that the United States has been in 12 major wars in its 228 years of existence. That's a major conflict every 19 years, and only four of those, with the possible inclusion of Gulf War I which is open to debate, did we not pick. And I'm not even counting The Balkans, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, and such.
That's not necessarily so. The Mexican War, while it did turn into an expansionist war, was initially to defend Texas. The Spanish-American war may have been journalism gone bad, but Congress did believe that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars were a response to the Truman doctrine, and so has Grenada. I'm not saying that all wars we've fought are ad hoc, but the majority of them we were drawn into.

The equipment we sold to the shah is from the 1970s. Outdated. Since then they bought from the soviets. The F14s we sold them were disabled before the boeing engineers left the country. They might be able to get one or two up but that's it. They use soviet tanks and aircraft. The information is out there, look it up. The revolutionary guards may be commited fighters, but they are the minority. Also they don't train as hard as US troops. Training takes money for wear and tear on equipment, fuel, and ordinance spent. The US is top notch because we spend the money. Iran is third rate at best. It doesn't take much to be a regional power in most parts of the world. Most armies are orders of magnitude behind the US and European powers. The Soviet Union never sold weapons to Iran.

The Russian Federation sold arms to Tehran in the mid-1990s but only on a limited scale.

Are you kidding. You do realize that the U.S. troops in Iraq are RUNNING OUT OF BULLETS, yes? 20 million dudes with pointed sticks are probably going to be able to mess up 100,000 soldiers who don't have bullets in their guns.

Each U.S. soldier would have to personally kill 200 Iranians with his pocket knife.

And if the U.S. cannot occupy a country, it has no business attacking it. That is UNCONSCIONABLE. You do not go into a country, blow it to hell, and then leave it to its own devices. We did that in WWI with Germany, and look what happened: The Weirmahr Republic gave way to the Third Reich.
We can buy more. We are already purchasing more from Israel. Our factories are hiring more workers and increasing production. Let's face it. We made enough ammo to defeat the nazis and Japanese once, and that was with much less advanced machinery.

can anyone actually prove to me that the population of iran would really like to see thousands of non-muslim, foriegn troops destroying first, thier infrastructure, no power, water for possibly months. second thier livelyhoods, thirdly killing possibly tens of thousands of innocent people in the process, and finally making the people pay for thier own country's reconstruction....i think i'd know what my answer would be!

That's not necessarily so. The Mexican War, while it did turn into an expansionist war, was initially to defend Texas.

Texas was not being attacked, it was in fact a Texian expedition that was repelled by a small group from the Mexican army in Mexican territory (or at least, disputed territory).

The US used this as a excuse to invade Mexico, which was the last step in a very ambitous and well known expansionist policy.

Even Lincoln, a congressman then, denounced it as a land grab.

We can buy more. We are already purchasing more from Israel. Our factories are hiring more workers and increasing production. Let's face it. We made enough ammo to defeat the nazis and Japanese once, and that was with much less advanced machinery.


The simple fact that we need to rely on a nation such as Israel for a military item as crucial as small arms ammunition, it scares me.


The Army should have as a goal, to get about 100-200 trillion rounds of varying calibers of ammunition in supply depots throughout the nation.


We if Israel suddenly decides to cut-off the flow of ammunition to Iraq unless we give them more money and more advanced jet fighters?

I believe that if Bush has his way, while Iran is a tempting option, it has an army of a much greater size which is fully prepared for war, as opposed to the very depleted and crushed army of Saddam. My guess? North Korea, despite the fact that they threaten with nukes. First, I feel it needs to be done, and second, I feel that Bush is just crazy enough to do it. I don't like Bush, but I like the fact that we have an up and coming nuclear power less.

Just my $.02

-R. S. of UC

The Soviet Union never sold weapons to Iran.

The Russian Federation sold arms to Tehran in the mid-1990s but only on a limited scale.
My bad, china is their primary supplier. They make copies of the russian tanks and that threw me off.

Congratulations! You made another post with either US, USA or America in it!

I doubt Iran will be next target... Hell I don't think ANY country is the next target. North-Korea? I have strong doubts about that one too. It's a very hard landscape to fight on, 1.5 million troops, nukes and China as ally.

Syria

Texas was not being attacked, it was in fact a Texian expedition that was repelled by a small group from the Mexican army in Mexican territory (or at least, disputed territory).

The US used this as a excuse to invade Mexico, which was the last step in a very ambitous and well known expansionist policy.

Even Lincoln, a congressman then, denounced it as a land grab.
However, Texas has been attacked only a few years prior, and Mexico held a desire to regain the territory.

I believe that if Bush has his way, while Iran is a tempting option, it has an army of a much greater size which is fully prepared for war, as opposed to the very depleted and crushed army of Saddam. My guess? North Korea, despite the fact that they threaten with nukes. First, I feel it needs to be done, and second, I feel that Bush is just crazy enough to do it. I don't like Bush, but I like the fact that we have an up and coming nuclear power less.

Just my $.02

-R. S. of UC
Now, before anything happens I would like to point out that Iran has the most liberal and democratic government in any muslim country. Only problem is, that their religious leaders can rule out any decision the government makes. So, the people in Iran are pretty democratic and liberal in their mind. They will eventually win the battle against religious leaders by themselves. There's no need to mess that country up aswell.
My quess is Syria.

Now, before anything happens I would like to point out that Iran has the most liberal and democratic government in any muslim country. Only problem is, that their religious leaders can rule out any decision the government makes. So, the people in Iran are pretty democratic and liberal in their mind. They will eventually win the battle against religious leaders by themselves. There's no need to mess that country up aswell.
My quess is Syria.
That's the problem. Despite the liberal-minded population, those at the top won't allow for change. It'd make any war tricky, but I believe that, should a non-Israeli country be involved, any invasion would be seen by Iranians as liberation.
As for Syria, I wouldn't worry about it. It's leader is extremely weak, and if the area does liberalize, he'd fall quickly. I fear, however, that Syria may get involved should war with Iran happen. After all, Syria and Iran have been traditional allies.
I wouldn't mind, though. It'd be an oppritunity to liberate Lebannon from its Syrian oppressors.

Hezbollah is based out of Lebanon and launches attacks against Israel, they are backed by Iran as Hezbollah is a shiite group.

Hezbollah only attacks Israel when they invade Lebanese airspace, or if they violate Lebanese sovereignity some other way.

Hezbollah only attacks Israel when they invade Lebanese airspace, or if they violate Lebanese sovereignity some other way.
Not exactly true. Hizb'Allah has attacked Israel every chance it gets. In fact, during Lebannon's civil war, every government in Beirut begged Hizb'Allah to launch attacks on Israel only on Israeli soil. The reason it's been quiet there is because there's a security fence on the boarder between Israel and Lebannon.

Sorry to bring this up Joey P, but aren't a lot of the US troops in Iraq National Guard? i.e. Just kids who joined up not expecting to see action and thought of it as a way to serve their community, save some money and get free Collge education, before leaving and starting a family.


I personally resent you calling me a kid.

I am insulted that you would doubt mine or my comrades resolve when we get to Iraq. Those that don't think anything will happen after they join are dumb, The days of the NG just staying home are long past. I mean we joined the friggin army not the Girl Scouts

We all know what we are getting into. Or discover what its like to a certain degree during Basic and AIT.


PV2 Wayne D. Wallace
838th Military Police Company
1-73rd Troop Command
Ohio Army National Guard

I personally resent you calling me a kid.

I am insulted that you would doubt mine or my comrades resolve when we get to Iraq. Those that don't think anything will happen after they join are dumb, The days of the NG just staying home are long past. I mean we joined the friggin army not the Girl Scouts

We all know what we are getting into. Or discover what its like to a certain degree during Basic and AIT.


PV2 Wayne D. Wallace
838th Military Police Company
1-73rd Troop Command
Ohio Army National Guard
You know exactly what your job description is for the National Guard, don't you?

Hooah


I'm to follow orders(only legal ones, if the order is not legal i don't have to follow)

I'm to serve my Country and My State

I will serve 6 years (8 if they stick with the IRR)


I know I will end up in Iraq within the next year, I know I will be performing a dangerous job, I know I will be frightened and scared and I know I will perform my duties to the best of my abilities.


or do you have another job description for me?

A full scale war would be disastrous for the progress of the Iranian people! The Arabs controlling the government are on the verge of being overthrown, street demonstrations are becoming more commonplace, the people are sick of the Islam imposed on them. Iran will soon be a secular democracy, as good as it was under the Shah.

Hooah


I'm to follow orders(only legal ones, if the order is not legal i don't have to follow)

I'm to serve my Country and My State

I will serve 6 years (8 if they stick with the IRR)


I know I will end up in Iraq within the next year, I know I will be performing a dangerous job, I know I will be frightened and scared and I know I will perform my duties to the best of my abilities.


or do you have another job description for me?

Have you been in the military yet? Have you served one day?

A full scale war would be disastrous for the progress of the Iranian people! The Arabs controlling the government are on the verge of being overthrown, street demonstrations are becoming more commonplace, the people are sick of the Islam imposed on them. Iran will soon be a secular democracy, as good as it was under the Shah.
On the other side of the coin, any war may encourage the Iranian people to revolt. It happened in Basra during Gulf War II, where the locals helped flush the Iraqi troops out.

To Of the council of clan,
I wasn't getting at the NGAUS, ok? If you read my msg again, I used the term 'kid' cause Joey P did in his first msg.
Also, to me anyone under 20 is a kid, so sorry if you resent that, but then no doubt to you anyone over 30 is a has-been, right? ;)
As for the NGAUS, why are they still advertising themselves as a way to serve your community - and even on their website touting the benefits of joining such as discounted car rentals and ('shudder') "Dismemberment Insurance"?

I voted yes, however I dont really know which will be first our of Iran or North Korea.

Not exactly true. Hizb'Allah has attacked Israel every chance it gets. In fact, during Lebannon's civil war, every government in Beirut begged Hizb'Allah to launch attacks on Israel only on Israeli soil. The reason it's been quiet there is because there's a security fence on the boarder between Israel and Lebannon. and the fact Israel finally withdrew from Lebanon after it had finished murdering civilians...

Have you been in the military yet? Have you served one day?


Yes, I've been in a full year, and I just made PFC, And hopefully Specialist won't be too far behind.

When I go to Iraq that will help me up to SGT probably. So within 3 years I'll see the rank of SGT and have to go to PLDC.